DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20204007

Comparative evaluation of tubal patency by hysterosalpingography and laparoscopic chromopertubation

Bindu S.

Abstract


Background: Infertility is defined as one year of unprotected intercourse without pregnancy, primary in which no previous pregnancies have occurred and secondary in which a prior pregnancy not necessarily a live birth has occurred. The objective of the study was to compare the relative efficacy of hysterosalpingography (HSG) and laparoscopy with chromopertubation in the diagnosis of tubal factors in infertile women.

Methods: 90 infertile women attending the infertility clinic at Dharmapuri Medical College and Hospital were selected for this study. The study period was from April 2016 to July 2017 these patients were initially counseled along with their partners and a thorough history of both the partners was obtained followed by a general and pelvic examination of female partners.

Results: HSG results indicated that 48 patients had tubal pathology and 11 patients had uterine pathology. Of those 11 patients with uterine pathology, 6 patients with synechiae had both tubal and uterine pathology. The remaining 5 had only uterine pathology and tubes were patent in them. The site of tubal occlusion in all those blocked tubes shows that more number of the tubal blockage was seen in mid segment of the tube (24 cases) followed by the fimbrial block in 16 cases. Diagnostic laparoscopy with chromopertubation was performed in all 90 patients and the findings were recorded.

Conclusions: HSG has reasonably good sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing tubal pathology of infertile women. But given the high rate of false-positive diagnosis of tubal pathology (29%) in HSG, a follow-up laparoscopy is warranted.

 


Keywords


Hysterosalpingography, Luteal phase defect, Salpingitis isthmica nodosa, Pelvic inflammatory disease

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alessi B. Accuracy of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopic hydrogenation in the diagnosis of tubal patency. Fertil Steril. 1996;65(3):673-5.

Munro MG, Brill AI, Parker AH. Gynaecologic endoscopy. In: Novack’s Gynecology. 2002; 711- 973.

Rao AR. Uterine and cervical factors. In: Chapter-16, The infertility manual, 2nd Edn. 2004;181-96.

Baramki TA. Hysterosalpingography. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(6):1595-606.

Bello TO. The pattern of tubal pathology in infertile women hysterosalpingography. Ann Afr Med. 2004;3(2):77-9.

Mol BW, Swart P, Bossuyt PM, van der Veen F. Is hysterosalpingography an important tool in predicting fertility outcome. Fertil Steril, 1997;67(4):663-9.

Dessole S, Meloni GB, Capobianco G, Manzoni MA, Ambrosini G, Canalis GC. A second HSG reduces the use of the selective technique for the treatment of proximal tubal obstruction. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(5):1037-9.

Fayez JA, Mutie G, Schneider PJ. The diagnostic value of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in infertility investigations. Int J Fertil. 1988;33(2):98-101.

Cundiff G, Carr BR, Marshburn PB. Infertile couples with a normal hysterosalpingogram. J Reproductive Med. 1995;40(1):19-23.

Heeley DL, Trounson AO, Andersen AN. Female infertility causes & treatment- A review article. The Lancet. 1994;34:1539-44.

Hurd WW, Wyckoff ET, Reynolds DB. Patient rotation and resolution of unilateral corneal obstruction during hysterosalpingography. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101(6):1275- 8.

Rice JP, London SN, Olive DL. Re-evaluation of hysterosalpingography in infertility investigation. Obst Gyne. 1986;6(5):719-21.

Nakade KD, Deokar SS. Comparative study of laparoscopy and hysterosalpingography in infertility. J Obst Gynec. 1993;2:785-7.

Opsat MS, Miller B, Klein TA. The predictive value of hysterosalpingography for tubal and peritoneal infertility factors. Fertile Steril. 1993;60(3):444-8.

Bhatla N. Infections as they infect individual organs. Jeffcoat's principles of gynecology. 200;355-74.

Howkins, Bourne PI. Churchill Livingstone Publications; 2002;146-52.

Swart P, Mol BW, van der Veen F, van Beurden M, Redekop WK, Bossuyt PM. The accuracy of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology. Fertile Steril. 1995;64(3):486-91.

Phelps JY, Vlahos NP, Zacur HA. Diagnosis and contemporary management of infertility. Post-Graduate Clin Obst Gynecol. 1998;18:1-7.

Shalev J, Krissi H, Blankstein J, Meizner I, Rafael ZB, Dicker D. Modified HSG during infertility. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(2):372-5.

Speroff L, Glass RH, Kase NG. Female infertility. Chapter- 27. Clinical gynecological endocrinology, and infertility, 7th Edn. Baltimore: William and Walkins; 2014: 1013-1068.

Karande VC, Pratt DE, Rabin DS, Gleicher N. The limited value of hysterosalpingography in assessing the tubal status and fertility potential. Fertil Steril. 1995;63(6):1167-71.

Wang CW, Lee CL, Lai YM, Tsai CC, Chang MY, Soong YK. Comparison of hysterosalpingography and hysteroscopy in female infertility. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1996;3(4):581-4.

Corson SL, Cheng A, Gutmann JN. Laparoscopy in the normal infertile patient: A question revisited. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparoscopy. 2000;317-24.

Glastein IZ, Sleeper LA, Lavy Y, Simon A, Adoni A, Palti Z, Hurwitz A, Laufer N. Observer variability in diagnosis and management of hysterosalpingography. 1997;67(2):233-7.

Sharma R, Sharma V. The infertile woman: a study of 120 cases. J Indian Med Assoc. 1991;89(2);31-2.