The assessment of endometrial pathology and tubal patency of infertile patients: MR-HSG and X-ray HSG

Arzu Turan; Halil Aslan; Nese Colcimen; Fatma Beyazal Celiker; Meryem Demirtas

doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20175432

Authors

Arzu Turan Department of Radiology, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Rize-Turkey
Halil Aslan Department of Radiology, Yildirim Beyazıt University, Ankara-Turkey
Nese Colcimen Department of Hystology and Embryology, Yuzuncu Yil University, Van-Turkey
Fatma Beyazal Celiker Department of Radiology, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Rize-Turkey
Meryem Demirtas Department of Radiology, Medipol University, Istanbul-Turkey

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20175432

Keywords:

Infertility, MR-HSG, X-Ray HSG

Abstract

Background: Infertility is an important disorder for the pairs. Genetic, endocrine disorders or structural genital abnormalities can be cause. The cause of infertility can be determined with careful.

Methods: Although it can be reported that ultrasound with saline solution or contrast enhanced hystero salpingo-sonography is the best method to evaluate the uterine cavity and Fallopian tube patency, conventional hysterosalpingography (X-ray-HSG) remains the most commonly used procedure for imaging the uterine cavity and the fallopian tube patency in the evaluation of female infertility. But ionizing radiation to genital organs is the most important problem for X-ray-HSG.

Results: For this reason, they are still working on new methods to investigate female infertility as an alternative to X-ray HSGMRI is a favorite method because of excellent image characterization for the female genitals.

Conclusions: In this study, the diagnostic performance of MR-HSG was compared with X-ray-HSG which was accepted as a gold standard for detection of tubal patency and pathology of the endometrial cavity.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

John D, Kostas P. Embryo/fetus radiation dose and risk from dual X-ray absorptiometry examinations. Osteoporos Int. 2002;13:716-7.

Krysiewicz S. Infertility in women: diagnostic evaluation with hysterosalpingography and other imaging techniques: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992; 159:253-61.

Bourne ST, Bergh C, Granberg S, Asztely M, Thorburn J. The assessment of endometrial pathology and tubal patency: a comparison between the use of ultrasonography and X-rayhysterosalpingography for the investigation of infertility patients. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1999;14:200-4.

Imaoka I, Wada A, Matsuo M, Yoshida M, Kitagaki H, Sugimura K. MR imaging of disorders associated with female infertility: use in diagnosis, treatment, and management. Radiographics. 2003;23:1401-21.

Spring DB, Barkan HE, Pruyn SC. Potential therapeutic effects of contrast materials in hysterosalpingography: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Radiol. 2000;214:53-7.

Sohail S. Variables affecting immediate pain tolerance in X-ray hysterosalpingography. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2004;14:170-2.

Erling E, Gabriel F, Seth G. An ultrasound-based approach to the assessment of infertility, including the evaluation of tubal patency. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecol. 2004;18:13-28.

Richard T, Tempany GM, Jessie C, Maureen A, Adams DF. MR Hysterography using axial long TR imaging with three-dimensional projections of the uterus. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics.1997;21:117-23.

Wiesner W, Ruehm SG, Bongartz G, Kaim A, Reese E, De Geyter C. Three-dimensional dynamic MR hysterosalpingography: a preliminary report: Eur Radiol. 2001;11:1439-40.

Unterweger M, De Geyter C, Frohlich JM, Bongartz G, Wiesner W. Three-dimensional dynamic MR-hysterosalpingography; a new, low invasive, radiation-free and less painful radiological approach to female infertility: Human Repro. 2002;17:3138-41.