Journals / Journal of Clinical and Analytical Medicine / 2016 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 4

İnfertil Kadınlarda Histerosalpingografi Sonuçlarının Değerlendirilmesi

An Evaluation of Hysterosalpingography Results in Infertile Females

Pages
505–509
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

HSG indications should be defined more selectively to avoid the unecessary application of HSG and thereby increase the detection rate.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: To evaluate the diagnostic findings of hysterosalpingography (HSG) examinations of infertile females.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Method: A retrospective examination was made of all the records of HSG procedure applied in a university infertility clinic between January and December 2015.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:HSG indications should be defined more selectively to avoid the unecessary application of HSG and thereby increase the detection rate.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the diagnostic findings of hysterosalpingography (HSG) examinations of infertile females. Material and Method: A retrospective examination was made of all the records of HSG procedure applied in a university infertility clinic between January and December 2015. The diagnostic findings were analysed in those evaluated as abnormal HSG. Results: The records were examined of 610 HSG procedures applied during the study period. The mean age of patients was determined as 26.7±5.9 years. In 145 (23.8%) of the total HSG applications, at least 1 abnormality was determined. The most common abnormality was tubal occlusion, which was determined in a total of 77 (12.6%) patients; 56 unilateral (9.1%) and 21 bilateral (3.5%). In three (0.5%) cases, filling defect was determined in the uterine cavity, and in three (0.5%) cases in the cervical canal. Müllerian anomaly was determined in 51 (8.4%) patients, of which uterus didelfis was determined in three (0.5%) patients, unicornuate uterus in seven (1.2%), bicornuate uterus/septated uterus in 34 (5.6%) and arcuate uterus in seven (1.2%). Hydrosalpinx was determined in 17 (2.8%) patients and lack of peritoneal spill in five (0.8%) patients. Discussion: In the current study, HSG procedures were evaluated as abnormal at the rate of 23.8%. As HSG is inexpensive and easy to apply, it is one of the basic procedures in an infertility work-up. HSG indications should be defined more selectively to avoid the unecessary application of HSG and thereby increase the detection rate.

Özet

Amaç: İnfertil kadınlarda yapılan histerosalpingografinin (HSG) tanısal bulgularının sunulması amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Ocak-Aralık 2015 tarihleri arasında üniversite infertilite kliniğinde yapılan HSG kayıtları geriye dönük olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Anormal olarak değerlendirilen HSG sonuçlarındaki tanısal bulgular analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Çalışma süresi boyunca yapılmış olan 610 HSG işleminin kayıtları incelendi. Hastaların ortalama yaşı 26.7±5.9 olarak saptandı. Yapılan HSG işlemlerinin 145' inde (%23,8) en az bir anormallik mevcuttu. Tubal oklüzyon en sık saptanan anormallik olup toplam 77 (%12,6) olguda (56 (%9,1) olguda tek taraflı , 21 (%3,5) olguda çift taraflı) izlendi. Üç (%0,5) olguda uterin kavitede, üç (%0,5) olguda servikal kanalda dolum defekti saptandı. Toplam 51 (%8,4) olguda müllerian anomali (üç (%0,5) olguda uterus didelfis, yedi (%1,2) olguda uterus unikornis, 34 (%5,6) olguda bikornu/septat uterus, yedi(%1,2) olguda arkuat uterus) saptandı. 17 (%2,8) olguda hidrosalpinks mevcuttu. Beş (%0,8) olguda peritoneal dağılım izlenmedi. Tartışma: Çalışmamızda anormal olarak değerlendirilen HSG oranı %23,8 olarak saptanmıştır. İnfertilite değerlendirmesinin temel unsurlarından biri olan HSG ucuz ve kolay uygulanabilir bir işlemdir. Gereksiz çekilen HSG sayısının azaltmak ve bu şekilde HSG'nin saptama oranını arttırmak için HSG endikasyonları belirlenirken daha seçiçi davranılmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

OZER, A., BAKACAK, M., KOSTU, B., ERCAN, O., ASLAN, F., SAKALLI, H., KIRAN, H. (2022). İnfertil Kadınlarda Histerosalpingografi Sonuçlarının Değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Clinical and Analytical Medicine, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 4, 505–509. https://ajindex.com/articles/560923

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Pundir J, El Toukhy T. Uterine cavity assessment prior to IVF. Womens Health (Lond Engl) 2010;6(6):841-7.
  2. Farhi J, Ben-Haroush A. Distribution of causes of infertility in patients attending primary fertility clinics in Israel. Isr Med Assoc J 2011;13(1):51-5.
  3. Eng CW, Tang PH, Ong CL. Hysterosalpingography: Current applications. Singa- pore Med J 2007;48(4):368-73.
  4. Schankath AC, Fasching N, Urech-Ruh C, Hohl MK, Kubik-Huch RA. Hysterosal- pingography in the workup of female infertility: indications, technique and diag- nostic findings. Insights Imaging 2012;3(5):475-83.
  5. Chalazonitis A, Tzovara I, Laspas F, Porfyridis P, Ptohis N, Tsimitselis G. Hysterosalpingography: technique and applications. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol;38(5):199-205.
  6. Brown SE, Coddington CC, Schnorr J, Toner JP, Gibbons W, Oehninger S. Evalua- tion of outpatient hysteroscopy, saline infusion hysterosonography, and hystero- salpingography in infertile women: a prospective, randomized study. Fertil Steril;74(5):1029-34.
  7. Seyfettinoğlu S, Arlıer S, Adıgüzel FI, Adıgüzel C, Narin M.A, Nazik H. Fertility Outcomes After Reversal of Tubal Sterilisation. J Clin Anal Med 2016;7(1):85-8.
  8. Johnson N, Vandekerckhove P, Watson A, Lilford R, Harada T, Hughes E. Tubal flushing for subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;18(2):CD003718. Simpson W, Beitia LG, Mester J. Hysterosalpingography: A reemerging study. Radiographics 2006;26(2):419-31.
  9. Dalfo AR, Ubeda B, Ubeda A, et al. Diagnostic value of hysterosalpingography in the detection of intrauterine abnormalities: A comparison with hysteroscopy. AJR 2004;183(5):1405-9.
  10. Acholonu UC, Silberzweig J, Stein DE, Keltz M. Hysterosalpingography versus sonohysterography for intrauterine abnormalities. JSLS 2011;15(4):471-4.
  11. Soares SR, Reis MMBB, Camargos AF. Diagnostic accuracy of sonohystero- salpingography, transvaginal sonography and hysterosalpingography in patients with uterine cavity disorders. Fertil Steril 2000;73(2):406-11. Stampe Sorensen S. Estimated prevalence of mullerian duct anomalies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1998;67(5):441-5.
  12. Stray-Pedersen B, Stray-Pedersen S. Etiologic factors and subsequent repro- ductive performance in 195 couples with a prior history of habitual abortion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;148(2):140-6.
  13. Raga F, Bauset C, Remohl J, et al. Reproductive impact of congenital mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod 1997;12(10):2277-81.
  14. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, Thornton JG, Raine-Fenning N, Cooma- rasamy A. The prevalence of congenit