[Radiologic versus ultrasound fallopian tube imaging. Painfulness of the examination and diagnostic reliability of hysterosalpingography and hysterosalpingo-contrast-ultrasonography with echovist 200].

UNLABELLED

Evaluation of tubal patency is usually assessed with hysterosalpingography (HSG) or laparoscopy including chromopertubation. Sonographical visualisation with Echovist 200 (hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography-HyCoSy) provides a new noninvasive tool. Therefore we conducted a prospective controlled study to compare sonographic and radiological evaluation of the fallopian tube. Main test parameters were accuracy of both methods and patient discomfort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

50 patients were enrolled in this study. All patients were examined by both techniques; the sequence was randomly chosen. The results of HSG and HyCoSy were compared. Patient discomfort was assessed with a standardised questionnaire using a visual analog scale (0-10).

RESULTS

Diagnosis of tubal patency identifying proximal or distal blockage was the primary end point using HSG as standard technique. Proximal and distal patency by HSG was sonographically confirmed in 82.9% (63/76) and 82.1% (46/56) tubes respectively. If HSG revealed proximal or distal occlusion, identical results were obtained in 91.7% (22/24) or 60% (12/20) by HyCoSy. No significant differences were found in patient discomfort. However a significant correlation was demonstrated between tubal patency and discomfort. The lowest score was obtained in patients with open tubes (4.6) increased in patients with distal occlusion (6.0) and reached a maximum with proximal pathology (8.7).

CONCLUSION

Compared to conventional HSG, HyCoSy provides a highly efficient evaluation of tubal pathology and can be successfully used as a noninvasive screening method.