Comparison between X-ray-hysterosalpingography and 3 Tesla magnetic resonance-hysterosalpingography in the assessment of the tubal patency in the cause of female infertility.

Abstract

ObjectivesXR-hysterosalpingography currently represents the gold standard for tubal pathology evaluation. Magnetic resonance-HSG is an innovative technique. With our study, we aim to comprehend if and how MR-HSG, compared to traditional XR-HSG, could give us this additional information in the diagnostic/therapeutic process.Materials and methodsThis study included 19 patients between 30 and 42 years old (average age 37.7) affected by infertility. Patients underwent contextually both XR-HSG and MR-HSG, using a single catheterization. The dynamic MR-HSG exam consisted a MR sequence during contrast administration through the cervical catheter. ResultsBoth XR-HSG and MR-HSG documented that 15 of the 19 patients had bilateral tubal patency, while four patients had monolateral tubal patency. However, MR-HSG allowed us to diagnose additional findings:Two active endometriosis foci in adnexal localization and a condition of adenomyosisA unicornuate uterus malformationA submucous uterine myoma near the tubal ostiumA decrease of the ovarian reserve in a patientSo MR-HSG could potentially detect in 10/19 (52%) women the cause of their infertility, compared to 4/19 (21%) detected with XR-HSG and about 30% of women would have resulted as false negatives if we only used XR-HSG.Finally, with a questionnaire, we demonstrated that MR-HSG is less painful than XR-HSG.ConclusionsThese data thus confirm that XR-HSG and MR-HSG present the same diagnostic of assessing tubal patency. We also demonstrated that MR-HSG is able to detect further collateral findings that could likewise be a possible therapeutic target and it could possibly become the new gold standard in female infertility diagnostics.