Abstract
A World Health Organization-sponsored multicentered trial comparing the efficacy of gaseous tubal insufflation with hysterosalpingography (HSG) and/or laparoscopy plus dye hydrotubation in the assessment of tubal patency was undertaken. Three hundred ninety-three women in eight centers were involved (365 insufflations, 289 HSG, 189 laparoscopy). Patency was proven positive in 56% of insufflation, 45% of salpingography, and 52% of laparoscopy cases. Laparoscopy showed some women to have fibroids and a number of others to have ovarian abnormalities, endometriosis, pelvic adhesions, and/or congenital uterine malformation. Comparison of insufflation and HSG showed a false-positive rate of 42% and false-negative rate 24% in 363 cases. The false-positive rate of insufflation versus laparoscopy was 35% and the false-negative rate 38% of 180 cases. Only 55% of 125 women undergoing both HSG and laparoscopy had similar findings. The results suggest that gaseous tubal insufflation should not be employed as a method of investigating tubal patency. Diagnostic reliability of HSG is poor, but it is useful as a primary screening procedure, particularly when complimented with laparoscopy plus dye hydrotubation, which is the optimum method not only for assessing tubal patency but for discovering other hitherto unsuspected disease.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call