Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2020; 38(01): 074-086
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721720
Review Article

Tubal Flushing Treatment for Unexplained Infertility

Nienke van Welie
1   Department of Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Artur Ludwin
2   Department of Gynecology and Oncology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland
3   Ludwin and Ludwin Gynecology, Private Medical Center, Krakow, Poland
4   Centermed, Private Hospital and Clinic, Krakow, Poland
,
Wellington P. Martins
5   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil
6   Reproductive Medicine, SEMEAR fertilidade, Ribeirao Preto/SP, Brazil
,
Velja Mijatovic
1   Department of Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Kim Dreyer
1   Department of Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
› Author Affiliations Funding V.M. reports receiving travel and research grants from Guerbet and research grants from IQ Medicals. K.D. reports receiving travel and speakers fees from Guerbet.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Tubal patency testing was initially introduced as a diagnostic test. However, it has been observed that some tubal patency tests also have a therapeutic effect. This therapeutic effect can be influenced by the contrast medium used during tubal flushing. In this review, we discuss current evidence associated with different methods for tubal flushing and their potential impact on reproductive outcomes in women with unexplained infertility. Furthermore, we discuss their diagnostic accuracy, safety, and cost-effectiveness.

Keywords

infertility - tubal flushing - HyCoSy - hysterosalpingography - contrast medium


Publication History

Article published online:
18 December 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S. et al. The international glossary on infertility and fertility care, 2017. Hum Reprod 2017; 32 (09) 1786-1801
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 National institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Fertility problems: assessment and treatment 2013 [updated September 2017. . Accessed November 23, 2020 at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG156
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile female: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2015; 103 (06) e44-e50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Effectiveness and treatment for unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril 2006; 86 (05, Suppl 1): S111-S114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Watson A, Vandekerckhove P, Lilford R, Vail A, Brosens I, Hughes E. A meta-analysis of the therapeutic role of oil soluble contrast media at hysterosalpingography: a surprising result?. Fertil Steril 1994; 61 (03) 470-477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dreyer K, van Rijswijk J, Mijatovic V. et al. Oil-based or water-based contrast for hysterosalpingography in infertile women. N Engl J Med 2017; 376 (21) 2043-2052
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mohiyiddeen L, Hardiman A, Fitzgerald C. et al. Tubal flushing for subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (05) CD003718
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Johnson NP, Farquhar CM, Hadden WE, Suckling J, Yu Y, Sadler L. The FLUSH trial--flushing with lipiodol for unexplained (and endometriosis-related) subfertility by hysterosalpingography: a randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (09) 2043-2051
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Nugent D, Watson AJ, Killick SR, Balen AH, Rutherford AJ. A randomized controlled trial of tubal flushing with lipiodol for unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril 2002; 77 (01) 173-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ogata R, Nakamura G, Uchiumi Y. et al. Therapeutic efficacy of hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertility, a prospective, randomized, clinical study. Japanese Journal of Fertility and Sterility. 1993; 38 (01) 91-94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Schoenmaker J. Seriehysterosalpingografie. Thesis. 1973
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Weir WC, Weir DR. Therapeutic value of salpingograms in infertility. Fertil Steril 1951; 2 (06) 514-522
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Wang R, van Welie N, van Rijswijk J. et al. Effectiveness on fertility outcome of tubal flushing with different contrast media: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 54 (02) 172-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 van Rijswijk J, van Welie N, Dreyer K. et al. Tubal flushing with oil-based or water-based contrast at hysterosalpingography for infertility: long-term reproductive outcomes of a randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2020; 114 (01) 155-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Steiner AZ, Meyer WR, Clark RL, Hartmann KE. Oil-soluble contrast during hysterosalpingography in women with proven tubal patency. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101 (01) 109-113
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Yang KN, Yeh NG, Pan SB. The therapeutic effects of oil-soluble hysterosalpingography contrast medium following water-soluble hysterosalpingography contrast medium. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei) 1989; 44 (05) 293-297
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Role of tubal surgery in the era of assisted reproductive technology: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2015; 103 (06) e37-e43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Guideline N. National guideline basic fertility work up. Dutch Guidelines for Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Woolcott R, Fisher S, Thomas J, Kable W. A randomized, prospective, controlled study of laparoscopic dye studies and selective salpingography as diagnostic tests of fallopian tube patency. Fertil Steril 1999; 72 (05) 879-884
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Al-Fadhli R, Sylvestre C, Buckett W, Tulandi T. A randomized study of laparoscopic chromopertubation with lipiodol versus saline in infertile women. Fertil Steril 2006; 85 (02) 505-507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Letterie GS, Rose GS. Pregnancy rates after the use of oil-based and water-based contrast media to evaluate tubal patency. South Med J 1990; 83 (12) 1402-1403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Decker A. The mechanical treatment of tubal occlusion by culdoscopy and insufflation. Fertil Steril 1951; 2 (06) 487-497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Gordts S, Campo R, Rombauts L, Brosens I. Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy as an outpatient procedure for infertility investigation. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (01) 99-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Deichert U, van de Sandt M, Lauth G, Daume E. [Transvaginal contrast hysterosonography. A new diagnostic procedure for the differentiation of intrauterine and myometrial findings]. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 1988; 48 (12) 835-844
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Deichert U, Schlief R, van de Sandt M, Göbel R, Daume E. [Transvaginal contrast hysterosalpingo-sonography with the B-image procedure and color-coded duplex sonography for the assessment of fallopian tube patency]. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 1990; 50 (09) 717-721
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Deichert U. [Contrast hysterosalpingography (or HyCoSy)]. Contracept Fertil Sex 1993; 21 (03) 213-216
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dijkman AB, Mol BW, van der Veen F, Bossuyt PM, Hogerzeil HV. Can hysterosalpingocontrast-sonography replace hysterosalpingography in the assessment of tubal subfertility?. Eur J Radiol 2000; 35 (01) 44-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lim CP, Hasafa Z, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A. Should a hysterosalpingogram be a first-line investigation to diagnose female tubal subfertility in the modern subfertility workup?. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (05) 967-971
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Reis MM, Soares SR, Cancado ML, Camargos AF. Hysterosalpingo contrast sonography (HyCoSy) with SH U 454 (Echovist) for the assessment of tubal patency. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (11) 3049-3052
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Saunders RD, Shwayder JM, Nakajima ST. Current methods of tubal patency assessment. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (07) 2171-2179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Heikkinen H, Tekay A, Volpi E, Martikainen H, Jouppila P. Transvaginal salpingosonography for the assessment of tubal patency in infertile women: methodological and clinical experiences. Fertil Steril 1995; 64 (02) 293-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ludwin I, Ludwin A, Wiechec M. et al. Accuracy of hysterosalpingo-foam sonography in comparison to hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with air/saline and to laparoscopy with dye. Hum Reprod 2017; 32 (04) 758-769
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Robertshaw IM, Sroga JM, Batcheller AE. et al. Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with a saline-air device is equivalent to hysterosalpingography only in the presence of tubal patency. J Ultrasound Med 2016; 35 (06) 1215-1222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Lanzani C, Savasi V, Leone FPG, Ratti M, Ferrazzi E. Two-dimensional HyCoSy with contrast tuned imaging technology and a second-generation contrast media for the assessment of tubal patency in an infertility program. Fertil Steril 2009; 92 (03) 1158-1161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Zhou L, Zhang X, Chen X. et al. Value of three-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with SonoVue in the assessment of tubal patency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40 (01) 93-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Exacoustos C, Di Giovanni A, Szabolcs B. et al. Automated three-dimensional coded contrast imaging hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography: feasibility in office tubal patency testing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41 (03) 328-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 He Y, Geng Q, Liu H, Han X. First experience using 4-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with SonoVue for assessing fallopian tube patency. J Ultrasound Med 2013; 32 (07) 1233-1243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Wang Y, Qian L. Three- or four-dimensional hysterosalpingo contrast sonography for diagnosing tubal patency in infertile females: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Radiol 2016; 89 (1063): 20151013
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Emanuel MH, van Vliet M, Weber M, Exalto N. First experiences with hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) for office tubal patency testing. Hum Reprod 2012; 27 (01) 114-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Emanuel MH, Exalto N. Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy): a new technique to visualize tubal patency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37 (04) 498-499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Ludwin A, Nastri CO, Ludwin I, Martins WP. Hysterosalpingo-lidocaine-foam sonography combined with power Doppler imaging (HyLiFoSy-PD) in tubal patency assessment: ‘flaming tube’ sign. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50 (06) 808-810
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Maheux-Lacroix S, Boutin A, Moore L. et al. Hysterosalpingosonography for diagnosing tubal occlusion in subfertile women: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2014; 29 (05) 953-963
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Exacoustos C, Pizzo A, Lazzeri L, Pietropolli A, Piccione E, Zupi E. Three-dimensional hysterosalpingo contrast sonography with gel foam: methodology and feasibility to obtain 3-dimensional volumes of tubal shape. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017; 24 (05) 827-832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Riganelli L, Casorelli A, Caccetta J. et al. Ultrasonography reappraisal of tubal patency in assisted reproduction technology patients: comparison between 2D and 3D-sonohysterosalpingography. A pilot study. Minerva Ginecol 2018; 70 (02) 123-128
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Lindborg L, Thorburn J, Bergh C, Strandell A. Influence of HyCoSy on spontaneous pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2009; 24 (05) 1075-1079
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Maheux-Lacroix S, Bergeron C, Moore L. et al. Hysterosalpingosonography is not as effective as hysterosalpingography to increase chances of pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2019; 41 (05) 593-598
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Tanaka K, Chua J, Cincotta R, Ballard EL, Duncombe G. Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy): tolerability, safety and the occurrence of pregnancy post-procedure. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2018; 58 (01) 114-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Chunyan G, Bin P, Ping Y. et al. Assessment of the influence on spontaneous pregnancy of hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography. BioMed Res Int 2018; 2018: 4901281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Giugliano E, Cagnazzo E, Bazzan E, Patella A, Marci R. Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography: is possible to quantify the therapeutic effect of a diagnostic test?. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2012; 39 (04) 161-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC. et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: i4919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 van Rijswijk J, van Welie N, Dreyer K. et al. The FOAM study: is hysterosalpingo foam sonography (HyFoSy) a cost-effective alternative for hysterosalpingography (HSG) in assessing tubal patency in subfertile women? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Womens Health 2018; 18 (01) 64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 van Welie N, van Rijswijk J, Dreyer K. et al. Can hysterosalpingo foam sonography (HyFoSy) replace hysterosalpingography (HSG) as first choice tubal patency test: a randomized comparison (foam study)?. Fertil Steril 2019; 112 (03) e2-e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Exalto N, Emanuel MH. Clinical aspects of HyFoSy as tubal patency test in subfertility workup. BioMed Res Int 2019; 2019: 4827376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Seshadri S, El-Toukhy T, Douiri A, Jayaprakasan K, Khalaf Y. Diagnostic accuracy of saline infusion sonography in the evaluation of uterine cavity abnormalities prior to assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Hum Reprod Update 2015; 21 (02) 262-274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Bittencourt CA, Dos Santos Simões R, Bernardo WM. et al. Accuracy of saline contrast sonohysterography in detection of endometrial polyps and submucosal leiomyomas in women of reproductive age with abnormal uterine bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017; 50 (01) 32-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Hajishafiha M, Zobairi T, Zanjani VR, Ghasemi-Rad M, Yekta Z, Mladkova N. Diagnostic value of sonohysterography in the determination of fallopian tube patency as an initial step of routine infertility assessment. J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28 (12) 1671-1677
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Christianson MS, Legro RS, Jin S. et al. Comparison of sonohysterography to hysterosalpingogram for tubal patency assessment in a multicenter fertility treatment trial among women with polycystic ovary syndrome. J Assist Reprod Genet 2018; 35 (12) 2173-2180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Ludwin A, Coelho Neto MA, Ludwin I. et al. Congenital uterine malformation by experts (CUME): diagnostic criteria for T-shaped uterus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2020; 55 (06) 815-829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Pérez-Medina T, Bajo-Arenas J, Salazar F. et al. Endometrial polyps and their implication in the pregnancy rates of patients undergoing intrauterine insemination: a prospective, randomized study. Hum Reprod 2005; 20 (06) 1632-1635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Jayaprakasan K, Polanski L, Sahu B, Thornton JG, Raine-Fenning N. Surgical intervention versus expectant management for endometrial polyps in subfertile women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (08) CD009592
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Casini ML, Rossi F, Agostini R, Unfer V. Effects of the position of fibroids on fertility. Gynecol Endocrinol 2006; 22 (02) 106-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Bosteels J, van Wessel S, Weyers S. et al. Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 12: CD009461
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Rikken JFW, Verhorstert KWJ, Emanuel MH. et al. Septum resection in women with a septate uterus: a cohort study. Hum Reprod 2020; 35 (07) 1578-1588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Rikken JF, Kowalik CR, Emanuel MH. et al. Septum resection for women of reproductive age with a septate uterus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 1 (01) CD008576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Rikken JFW, Kowalik CR, Emanuel MH. et al. The randomised uterine septum transsection trial (TRUST): design and protocol. BMC Womens Health 2018; 18 (01) 163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Smit JG, Kasius JC, Eijkemans MJC. et al. Hysteroscopy before in-vitro fertilisation (inSIGHT): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 387 (10038): 2622-2629
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 El-Toukhy T, Campo R, Khalaf Y. et al. Hysteroscopy in recurrent in-vitro fertilisation failure (TROPHY): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 387 (10038): 2614-2621
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Edelstam G, Sjösten A, Bjuresten K, Ek I, Wånggren K, Spira J. A new rapid and effective method for treatment of unexplained infertility. Hum Reprod 2008; 23 (04) 852-856
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Aboulghar MA, Mourad LM, Al-Inany HG, Aboulghar MM, Mansour RT, Serour GA. Prospective randomized study for hydrotubation versus no hydrotubation before intrauterine insemination in unexplained infertility. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 20 (04) 543-546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Morad AWA, Abdelhamid AA. Prospective randomized study for hydrotubation with or without lidocaine before intrauterine insemination in unexplained infertility. Middle East Fertil Soc J 2012; 17 (04) 250-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Maheux-Lacroix S, Dodin S, Moore L, Bujold E, Lefebvre J, Bergeron MÈ. Preovulatory uterine flushing with saline as a treatment for unexplained infertility: a randomised controlled trial protocol. BMJ Open 2016; 6 (01) e009897
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 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: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 1995; 64 (03) 486-491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Broeze KA, Opmeer BC, Van Geloven N. et al. Are patient characteristics associated with the accuracy of hysterosalpingography in diagnosing tubal pathology? An individual patient data meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17 (03) 293-300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Lim SL, Jung JJ, Yu SL, Rajesh H. A comparison of hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) and hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with saline medium (HyCoSy) in the assessment of tubal patency. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015; 195: 168-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Piccioni MG, Riganelli L, Filippi V. et al. Sonohysterosalpingography: Comparison of foam and saline solution. J Clin Ultrasound 2017; 45 (02) 67-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Darai E, Dessolle L, Lecuru F, Soriano D. Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy compared with laparoscopy for the evaluation of infertile women: a prospective comparative blind study. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (11) 2379-2382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Dechaud H, Ali Ahmed SA, Aligier N, Vergnes C, Hedon B. Does transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy render standard diagnostic laparoscopy obsolete for unexplained infertility investigation?. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001; 94 (01) 97-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Nawroth F, Foth D, Schmidt T, Römer T. Results of a prospective comparative study of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy and chromolaparoscopy in the diagnostics of infertility. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2001; 52 (03) 184-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Watrelot A, Nisolle M, Chelli H, Hocke C, Rongières C, Racinet C. International Group for Fertiloscopy Evaluation. Is laparoscopy still the gold standard in infertility assessment? A comparison of fertiloscopy versus laparoscopy in infertility. Results of an international multicentre prospective trial: the ‘FLY’ (Fertiloscopy-LaparoscopY) study. Hum Reprod 2003; 18 (04) 834-839
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Tros R, van Kessel M, Oosterhuis J. et al. Transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy and laparoscopy. Reprod Biomed Online 2020; 40 (01) 105-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Mol BW, Swart P, Bossuyt PM, van Beurden M, van der Veen F. Reproducibility of the interpretation of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology. Hum Reprod 1996; 11 (06) 1204-1208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Ludwin I, Ludwin A, Nastri CO, Coelho Neto MA, Kottner J, Martins WP. Inter-rater reliability of air/saline HyCoSy, HyFoSy and HyFoSy combined with power Doppler for screening tubal patency. Ultraschall Med 2019; 40 (01) 47-54
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Kaneshige T, Arata N, Harada S. et al. Changes in serum iodine concentration, urinary iodine excretion and thyroid function after hysterosalpingography using an oil-soluble iodinated contrast medium (lipiodol). J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015; 100 (03) E469-E472
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Uzun O, Findik S, Danaci M, Katar D, Erkan L. Pulmonary and cerebral oil embolism after hysterosalpingography with oil soluble contrast medium. Respirology 2004; 9 (01) 134-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Satoh M, Aso K, Katagiri Y. Thyroid dysfunction in neonates born to mothers who have undergone hysterosalpingography involving an oil-soluble iodinated contrast medium. Horm Res Paediatr 2015; 84 (06) 370-375
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 So S, Yamaguchi W, Tajima H. et al. The effect of oil and water-soluble contrast medium in hysterosalpingography on thyroid function. Gynecol Endocrinol 2017; 33 (09) 682-685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Roest I, van Welie N, Mijatovic V. et al. Complications after hysterosalpingography with oil- or water-based contrast: results of a nationwide survey. Hum Reprod Open 2020; 2020 (01) hoz045
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Dusak A, Soydinc HE, Onder H. et al. Venous intravasation as a complication and potential pitfall during hysterosalpingography: re-emerging study with a novel classification. J Clin Imaging Sci 2013; 3: 67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Ron M, Menashe M, Aviad I, Palti Z, Mogle P. Fertility after the demonstration of intravasation during hysterosalpingography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1986; 24 (06) 431-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Mekaru K, Kamiyama S, Masamoto H, Sakumoto K, Aoki Y. Thyroid function after hysterosalpingography using an oil-soluble iodinated contrast medium. Gynecol Endocrinol 2008; 24 (09) 498-501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 van den Boogaard E, Vissenberg R, Land JA. et al. Significance of (sub)clinical thyroid dysfunction and thyroid autoimmunity before conception and in early pregnancy: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17 (05) 605-619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Korevaar TIM, Derakhshan A, Taylor PN. et al; Consortium on Thyroid and Pregnancy—Study Group on Preterm Birth. Association of thyroid function test abnormalities and thyroid autoimmunity with preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2019; 322 (07) 632-641
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 l'Allemand D, Grüters A, Heidemann P, Schürnbrand P. Iodine-induced alterations of thyroid function in newborn infants after prenatal and perinatal exposure to povidone iodine. J Pediatr 1983; 102 (06) 935-938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 van Welie N, Roest I, Portela M. et al; H2Oil Study Group. Thyroid function in neonates conceived after hysterosalpingography with iodinated contrast. Hum Reprod 2020; 35 (05) 1159-1167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 van Welie N, Portela M, Dreyer K. et al. Iodine contrast prior to or during pregnancy and neonatal thyroid function: a systematic review. Eur J Endocrinol 2020; ; (online ahead of print) DOI: 10.1530/EJE-20-0627.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Veerendrakumar CM, Suyajna DJ, Madhu YR. A rare case of delayed pulmonary oedema due to methemoglobinemia following laparoscopic chromopertubation with methylene blue. J Clin Diagn Res 2014; 8 (06) OD05-OD06
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Akazawa M, Wu YH, Liu WM. Allergy-like reactions to methylene blue following laparoscopic chromopertubation: a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2019; 238: 58-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Bilgin H, Ozcan B, Bilgin T. Methemoglobinemia induced by methylene blue pertubation during laparoscopy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1998; 42 (05) 594-595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Millo T, Misra R, Girdhar S, Rautji R, Lalwani S, Dogra TD. Fatal pulmonary oedema following laparoscopic chromopertubation. Natl Med J India 2006; 19 (02) 78-79
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Van Schoubroeck D, Van den Bosch T, Ameye L, Boes AS, D'Hooghe T, Timmerman D. Pain during Fallopian-tube patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 45 (03) 346-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Savelli L, Pollastri P, Guerrini M. et al. Tolerability, side effects, and complications of hysterosalpingocontrast sonography (HyCoSy). Fertil Steril 2009; 92 (04) 1481-1486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 102 Marci R, Marcucci I, Marcucci AA. et al. Hysterosalpingocontrast sonography (HyCoSy): evaluation of the pain perception, side effects and complications. BMC Med Imaging 2013; 13: 28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 103 Ludwin I, Martins WP, Nastri CO, Ludwin A. Pain intensity during ultrasound assessment of uterine cavity and tubal patency with and without painkillers: prospective observational study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017; 24 (04) 599-608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 104 Dreyer K, Out R, Emanuel MH, Hompes PGA, Mijatovic V. Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy): a less painful procedure for tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up, compared to (serial) hysterosalpingography. A randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 2014; 29: i218
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 105 Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Szczeklik W, Martins WP. Cutaneous small-vessel vasculitis following hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 54 (06) 831-834
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 106 Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Martins WP. Venous intravasation during evaluation of tubal patency by ultrasound contrast imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 51 (01) 143-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 107 Shi J, Li S, Wu H. et al. The influencing factors of venous intravasation during transvaginal four-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with SonoVue. Ultrasound Med Biol 2019; 45 (09) 2273-2280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 108 Wang W, Zhou Q, Zhou X, Chen Z, Zhang H. Influence factors on contrast agent venous intravasation during transvaginal 4-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2018; 37 (10) 2379-2385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 109 Dreyer K, van Eekelen R, Tjon-Kon-Fat RI. et al. The therapeutic effect of hysterosalpingography in couples with unexplained subfertility: a post-hoc analysis of a prospective multi-centre cohort study. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 38 (02) 233-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 110 van Welie N, Dreyer K, van Rijswijk J. et al. Treatment effect of oil-based contrast is related to experienced pain at HSG: a post-hoc analysis of the randomised H2Oil study. Hum Reprod 2019; 34 (12) 2391-2398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 111 Kerin JF, Williams DB, San Roman GA, Pearlstone AC, Grundfest WS, Surrey ES. Falloposcopic classification and treatment of fallopian tube lumen disease. Fertil Steril 1992; 57 (04) 731-741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 112 Hussain M, Al Damegh S, Tabish A. Therapeutic efficacy of hysterosalpingography with special reference to application of hydrostatic pressure during the procedure. Int J Health Sci (Qassim) 2007; 1 (02) 223-227
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 113 Yun AJ, Lee PY. Enhanced fertility after diagnostic hysterosalpingography using oil-based contrast agents may be attributable to immunomodulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183 (06) 1725-1727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 114 Johnson NP. A review of the use of lipiodol flushing for unexplained infertility. Treat Endocrinol 2005; 4 (04) 233-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 115 Johnson NP. Review of lipiodol treatment for infertility - an innovative treatment for endometriosis-related infertility?. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 54 (01) 9-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 116 Barash A, Dekel N, Fieldust S, Segal I, Schechtman E, Granot I. Local injury to the endometrium doubles the incidence of successful pregnancies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2003; 79 (06) 1317-1322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 117 Zhou L, Li R, Wang R, Huang HX, Zhong K. Local injury to the endometrium in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycles improves implantation rates. Fertil Steril 2008; 89 (05) 1166-1176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 118 Potdar N, Gelbaya T, Nardo LG. Endometrial injury to overcome recurrent embryo implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 25 (06) 561-571
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 119 Nastri CO, Gibreel A, Raine-Fenning N. et al. Endometrial injury in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (07) CD009517
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 120 van Hoogenhuijze NE, Kasius JC, Broekmans FJM, Bosteels J, Torrance HL. Endometrial scratching prior to IVF; does it help and for whom? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Open 2019; 2019 (01) hoy025
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 121 Sawatari Y, Horii T, Hoshiai H. Oily contrast medium as a therapeutic agent for infertility because of mild endometriosis. Fertil Steril 1993; 59 (04) 907-911
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 122 Mikulska D, Kurzawa R, Ròzewicka L. Morphology of in vitro sperm phagocytosis by rat peritoneal macrophages under influence of oily contrast medium (Lipiodol). Acta Eur Fertil 1994; 25 (03) 203-206
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 123 Izumi G, Koga K, Takamura M. et al. Oil-soluble contrast medium (OSCM) for hysterosalpingography modulates dendritic cell and regulatory T cell profiles in the peritoneal cavity: a possible mechanism by which OSCM enhances fertility. J Immunol 2017; 198 (11) 4277-4284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 124 Soules MR, Spadoni LR. Oil versus aqueous media for hysterosalpingography: a continuing debate based on many opinions and few facts. Fertil Steril 1982; 38 (01) 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 125 Totorikaguena L, Olabarrieta E, Matorras R, Alonso E, Agirregoitia E, Agirregoitia N. Mu opioid receptor in the human endometrium: dynamics of its expression and localization during the menstrual cycle. Fertil Steril 2017; 107 (04) 1070-1077.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 126 Sladkevicius P, Zannoni L, Valentin L. B-flow ultrasound facilitates visualization of contrast medium during hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 44 (02) 221-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 127 Tan Y, Zheng S, Lei W. et al. Ethiodized poppyseed oil versus ioversol for image quality and adverse events in hysterosalpingography: a prospective cohort study. BMC Med Imaging 2019; 19 (01) 50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 128 van Rijswijk J, Pham CT, Dreyer K. et al. Oil-based or water-based contrast for hysterosalpingography in infertile women: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2018; 110 (04) 754-760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 129 Veiga A, Gianaroli L, Ory S, Horton M, Feinberg E, Penzias A. Assisted reproduction and COVID-19: a joint statement of ASRM, ESHRE and IFFS. Hum Reprod Open 2020; 2020 (03) a033
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 130 Verhoeve HR, Moolenaar LM, Hompes P, van der Veen F, Mol BW. Cost-effectiveness of tubal patency tests. BJOG 2013; 120 (05) 583-593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar