Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2019; 29(02): 163-167
DOI: 10.4103/ijri.IJRI_109_18
Womens Imaging

Conventional and magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography in assessing tubal patency—A comparative study

Devimeenal Jagannathan
Department of Radiodiagnosis, Kilpauk Medical College, Kilpauk, Chennai, India
,
Fouzal Hithaya
Department of Radiodiagnosis, Kilpauk Medical College, Kilpauk, Chennai, India
› Author Affiliations
Subject Editor: Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Context: Tubal factors, one of the leading causes of female infertility, have been conventionally evaluated by hysterosalpingography (HSG). The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in assessing female infertility is gaining importance because of its inherent efficiency in detecting structural abnormalities. Magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography (MR HSG) is less invasive and avoids exposure of ovaries to ionizing radiation. Its utility is extrapolated to visualize fallopian tubes. Aims: To assess the diagnostic accuracies of dynamic MR HSG and conventional HSG (cHSG) in identifying tubal patency in women with infertility using diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) as gold standard. Materials and Methods: A prospective study of 40 patients was conducted over a period of 6 months. The patients were subjected to MR HSG followed by cHSG during the preovulatory period. If tubes were blocked, the patients were subjected to DL in the next menstrual cycle. If the tubes were patent and there was failure of conception, they were subjected to DL in the interval of 3 months. Results: Twenty-four patients had bilateral tubal spill which was confirmed using cHSG and DL. One patient had discordant MR HSG and cHSG results and six patients had discordant MR HSG and DL results. No statistical difference was observed between MR HSG and cHSG. Conclusion: Pelvic MRI is an inevitable tool in infertility evaluation. MR HSG can be used in addition as it avoids exposure of the reproductive organs to radiation and has the same efficacy as cHSG.

Keywords

Conventional hysterosalpingography - diagnostic laparoscopy - female infertility - magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography - tubal patency


Publication History

Article published online:
22 July 2021

© 2019. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K. et al. The international committee for monitoring assisted reproductive technology (ICMART) and the world health organization (WHO) revised glossary on ART terminology. human reproduction 2009; 24: 2683-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR, Boerma T, Vanderpoel S, Stevens GA. National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: A systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med 2012; 9: e1001356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Steinkeler JA, Woodfield CA, Lazarus E, Hillstrom MM. Female infertility: A systematic approach to radiologic imaging and diagnosis. Radiographics 2009; 29: 1353-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Simpson Jr WL, Beitia LG, Mester J. Hysterosalpingography: A reemerging study. Radiographics 2006; 26: 419-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sadowski EA, Ochsner JE, Riherd JM, Korosec FR, Agrawal G, Pritts EA. et al. MR hysterosalpingography with an angiographic time-resolved 3D pulse sequence: Assessment of tubal patency. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 191: 1381-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Unterweger M, De Geyter C, Fröhlich JM, Bongartz G, Wiesner W. Three-dimensional dynamic MR-hysterosalpingography; a new, low invasive, radiation-free and less painful radiological approach to female infertility. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 3138-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Winter L, Glücker T, Steimann S, Fröhlich JM, Steinbrich W, De Geyter C. et al. Feasibility of dynamic MR-hysterosalpingography for the diagnostic work-up of infertile women. Acta Radiol 2010; 51: 693-701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cipolla V, Guerrieri D, Pietrangeli D, Santucci D, Argirò R, de Felice C. Role of 3.0 tesla magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography in the diagnostic work-up of female infertility. Acta Radiol 2016; 57: 1132-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lee FT, Grist TM, Nelson KG, Chosy SG, Rappe AH, Shapiro SS. et al. MR hysterosalpingography in a rabbit model. J Magn Reson Imaging 1996; 6: 300-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Frye RE, Ascher SM, Thomasson D. MR hysterosalpingography: Protocol development and refinement for simulating normal and abnormal fallopian tube patency—feasibility study with a phantom. Radiology 2000; 214: 107-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wiesner W, Ruehm S, Bongartz G, Kaim A, Reese E, De Geyter C. Three-dimensional dynamic MR hysterosalpingography: A preliminary report. Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 1439-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Silberzweig JE. MR hysterosalpingography compared with conventional hysterosalpingography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192: W350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Foroozanfard F, Sadat Z. Diagnostic value of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy for tubal patency in infertile women. Nurs Midwifery Stud 2013; 2: 188-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar