These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography in diagnostic work-up of female infertility - comparison with conventional hysterosalpingography: a randomised study.
    Author: Volondat M, Fontas E, Delotte J, Fatfouta I, Chevallier P, Chassang M.
    Journal: Eur Radiol; 2019 Feb; 29(2):501-508. PubMed ID: 29974219.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare diagnostic accuracy of MR-hysterosalpingography (MR-HSG) and conventional hysterosalpingography (X-HSG) in the evaluation of female infertility. METHODS: Forty women received prospectively both X-HSG, the gold standard technique, and MR-HSG on the same day but the order in which they were conducted was randomised. A 1.5 Tesla MRI was performed with classical sequences for pelvic analysis and an additional 3D T1-weighted sequence with intra-uterine injection of gadolinium. Two radiologists independently interpreted X-HSG and MR-HSG according to randomisation, blinded to the other results. They both then performed a second interpretation of MR-HSG blinded to the first reading with a minimum time delay of 1 week. Diagnostic performance of MR-HSG for analysis of tubal and intracavity abnormalities was evaluated by calculating sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were included. Diagnostic performance of MR-HSG was: Se: 91.7% (95% CI 61.5-99.8); Sp: 92.9% (95% CI 66.1-99.8) ; PPV: 91.7% (95% CI 61.5-99.8); NPV: 92.9% (95% CI 66.1-99.8). Pain analysis showed a significant statistical difference between the two procedures: average VAS for X-HSG was 4.43 (95% CI 3.50-5.36) versus 3.46 (95% CI 2.62-4.31) for MR-HSG, p=0,01. Intra- and inter-rater agreements for detection of tubal or intracavity abnormalities were 0.92 (95% CI 0.78-1.00) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.52-1.00). CONCLUSION: MR-HSG is a well-tolerated technique demonstrating high accuracy in investigating tubal patency and intra-uterine abnormalities for diagnostic work-up of female infertility. KEY POINTS: • MR-hysterosalpingography is an innovative technique. • Hysterosalpingography can be used to investigate tubal patency and intracavity abnormalities. • Hysterosalpingography is a potential 'one-stop-shop' imaging technique for a single comprehensive examination of female infertility.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]