Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine

The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine (대한생식의학회)
권호 표지

The Accuracy of Hysterosalpingography for Evaluating Female Infertility

불임 검사시 자궁난관 조영술의 진단 정확도

  • Park, Joon Cheol (Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Keimyung University, School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Jong In (Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Keimyung University, School of Medicine) ;
  • Rhee, Jeong Ho (Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Keimyung University, School of Medicine)
  • 박준철 (계명대학교 의과대학 산부인과학교실) ;
  • 김종인 (계명대학교 의과대학 산부인과학교실) ;
  • 이정호 (계명대학교 의과대학 산부인과학교실)
  • Published : 2005.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the accuracy of hysterosalpingography (HSG) for evaluating female infertility patients by comparison with hysteroscopic and laparoscopic examination. Methods and Material: Total 219 infertile patients were retrospectively analyzed between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2003. Ninety seven patients (44.3%) were primary infertility, 122 patients (55.7%) were secondary infertility. We performed hysteroscopic and laparoscopic examination on next cycle when HSG revealed any abnormal finding, and 3~6 cycles later if HSG was normal. Results: The accuracy of HSG was 65.2% compared with hysteroscopic examination (sensitivity 88.4%, specificity 46.4%, false positive rate 53.6%, false negative rate 11.6%). The most common abnormal finding of hysteroscopy was uterine synechia (67.4%) followed by endometrial polyp, uterine anomaly (e.g. uterine septum), endometrial hyperplasia. Compared with laparoscopic examination, the accuracy of HSG was 76.9% (sensitivity 98.9%, specificity 70.6%, +LR 3.36, -LR 0.02). The positive predictive value of normal patent tube was excellent (99.6%) but that of proximal tubal blockage was only 46.7%. The unilateral tubal obstruction of HSG was poor accuracy (+LR 3.85 -LR 0.68) and 70% of those was patent by laparoscopic examination. Laparoscopic examination also revealed that 53% of patients had peritubal adhesion and 37% of patients has additional pelvic findings, especially endometriosis. Among the patients had normal HSG, 53.5% patients with normal ultrasonography was diagnosed endometriosis (25.6% of them had endometriosis stage I-II). Conclusion: Normal HSG shows a high negative predictive value. Nevertheless, the incidence of associated pelvic disease in the normal HSG group is high enough to warrant diagnostic laparoscopy if nonsurgical treatment is unsuccessful. Because HSG has poor accuracy in predicting distal tubal blockage and peritubal adhesion, and poor positive predictive value of proximal tubal blockage, laparoscopic examination could be considered in abnormal HSG group.

Keywords

References

  1. Papaioannou S, Bourdrez P, Varma R, Afnan M, Mol BWJ, Coomarasamy A. Tubal evaluation in the investigation of subfertility: a structured comparison of tests. BJOG 2004; 111: 1313-21 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00403.x
  2. 강경석, 류천희, 이희섭, 두재균, 김종국. 불임 환자에 대한 자궁난관 조영술과 복강경술 및 개복수술의 비교 연구. 산부회지 1990; 33: 976-84
  3. Gaglione R, Valentini AL, Pistilli E, Nuzzi NP. A comparison of hysteroscopy and hysterosalpingography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1996; 52: 151-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7292(95)02555-3
  4. 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: 581-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1074-3804(05)80170-7
  5. Hourvitz A, Ledee N, Gervaise A, Fernandez H, Frydman R, Olivennes F. Should diagnostic hysteroscopy be a routine procedure during diagnostic laparoscopy in women with normal hysterosalpingography? Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 4: 256-60 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61815-9
  6. Roma DA, Ubeda B, Ubeda A, Monzon M, Rotger R, Ramos R, et al. Diagnostic value of hysterosalpingography in detection of intrauterine abnormalities: a comparison with hysteroscopy. Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183: 1405-9 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.183.5.1831405
  7. Preutthipan S, Linasmita V.A prospective comparative study between hysterosalpingography and hysteroscopy in the detection of intrauterine pathology in patients with infertility. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2003; 29: 33-7 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1341-8076.2003.00068.x
  8. El-Minawi MF, Abdel-Hadi M, Ibrahim AA, Wahby O. Comparative evaluation of laparoscopy and hysterosalpingography in infertile patients. Obstet Gynecol 1978; 51: 29-32
  9. 이지성, 이만용, 이원영, 송찬호. 불임 환자의 난관인자 검사에 있어서 자궁난관 조영술과 복강경 소견의 비교 관찰. 산부회지 1985; 28: 1240-6
  10. 김종인, 이두룡, 서영욱. 불임증 환자에서 자궁난관 조영술 및 복강경 검사 소견의 비교 관찰. 산부회지 1985; 23: 777-82
  11. 나윤정, 이길형, 이정규, 오승진, 장하종, 한세준. 불임 환자의 난관개통에 대한 자궁난관 조영술과 복강경 검사의 비교 연구, 산부회지 1993; 36: 2857-62
  12. Rausmussen KL, Skaalum B, Christensen IH, Schierup L. The use and results of laparoscopic chromopertubation in women previously examinated by hysterosalpingography. Aceta Eur Fertil 1995; 26: 85-6
  13. delusi B, al-Nuaim L, Makanjuola D, Khashoggi T, Chowdhury N, Kangave D. Accuracy of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopic hydrotubation in diagnosis of tubal patency. Fertil Steril 1995; 63: 1016-20
  14. Vasiljevic M, Ganovic R, Jovanovic R, Markovic A. Diagnostic value of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in infertile women. Srp Ach Celok Lek 1996; 124: 135-8
  15. 김재익, 양정형, 김병원, 신성희, 김대화, 기광수, 임현정. 불임 환자에서 진단적 복강경술의 유용성에 대한 고찰. 산부회지 1997; 40: 2195-203
  16. Krynicki E, Kaminski P, Szymanski R, Gasior W, Marianowski L. Comparison of hysterosalpingography with laparoscopy and chromopertubation. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1996; 3: s22-3
  17. Tsankova M, Nalbanski B, Borisov I, Borisov S. A comparative study between hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in evaluating female infertility. Akush Ginekol 2000; 39: 20-2
  18. Gabos P. A comparison of hysterosalpingography and endoscopy in evaluation of tubal function in infertile women. Fertil Steril 1976; 27: 238-42
  19. Snowden EU, Jarrett JC 2nd, Dawood MY. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, and hysterosalpingography in evaluation of female infertility. Fertil Steril 1984; 41: 709-13.
  20. Nielsen DT, Rasmussen F, Justesen P. A comparative study of hysterosalpingography and endoscopy/laparotomy in infertile patients. Eur J Radiol 1987; 7: 260-2
  21. 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: 486-91
  22. Mackey RA, Glass RH, Olson LE, Vaidya RA, Pregnancy following hysterosalpingography with oil and water soluble dye. Fertil Steril 1971; 22: 504-7
  23. Mol BW, Swart P, Bossuyt PM, van der Veen F. Is hysterosalpingography an important tool in predicting fertility outcome? Fertil Steril 1997; 67: 663-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(97)81363-5
  24. Karasick S, Goldfarb AF. Peritubal adhesions in infertile women: diagnosis with hysterosalpingography. Am J Roentgenol 1989; 152: 777-9 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.152.4.777
  25. Piyavisetpat N, Mahayosnond A, Wangsuphachart S. Hysterosalpingographic accuracy of peritubal adhesion. J Med Assoc Thai 2002; 85: s210-6
  26. Micinski P, Poreba R, Smoczynska W. Comparison of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in infertile women. Ginekol Pol 1993; 64: 548-50
  27. Servy EJ, Tzingounis VA. Tubal patency: hysterosalpingography compared with laparoscopy. South Med J 1978; 71: 1511-2 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007611-197812000-00019
  28. 김장흡, 함재홍, 박혜동, 김윤호, 송승규. 난관 폐쇄성 불임증 진단에 있어서 자궁난관 조영법과 복강경 검사의 비교 관찰. 산부회지 1981;24: 113-20