Affiliation:
1. Facultad Mexicana de Medicina. Universidad La Salle, Mexico. , Hospital Ángeles Pedregal, Ciudad de México, México.
2. Facultad Mexicana de Medicina. Universidad La Salle, Mexico.
3. IMMUNOREP
4. Alpha 0.01 Clinical Research Institute, Durango, México.
Abstract
Purpose: For most of the pathologies that involve the female genital tract, pelvic sonography is an easily
accessible, cost-effective tool and should be considered as the initial study of choice. However, its
effectiveness depends on the operator ability and their experience demonstrated in its interpretation. A few studies exist that
demonstrate the sensitivity of sonohysterography as a diagnostic method for specic uterine pathologies. With the above, our
research question comes up: what is the sensitivity of sonohysterography for the diagnosis of benign uterine pathology?
Methods: A prospective, cross-sectional, observational study of diagnostic sensitivity was carried out in patients who came to
the ofce for abnormal uterine bleeding or fertility problems and who required imaging conrmation for this pathology.
Sonohysterography and hysteroscopy with biopsy for histopathology were performed in all cases. A total of 42 womenResults:
were studied, with an average age of 36 years and a BMI of 24 ± 3 kg / mt2, who's the most frequent reason for consultation was
infertility (71%). The sensitivity of sonohysterography for the polyposis and uterine broids diagnosis was 93% and 85%,
respectively. We propose the possibility that sonohysterography can be used as an alternative procedure toConclusion:
hysteroscopy, leaving the latter as a conrmatory method. This is a method that is easy to perform, less invasive, less costly, and
is well-tolerated. Therefore, diagnostic hysteroscopy could be limited to an inconclusive Sono-HSG, raising the possibility of
replacing 89% of outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopies.
Reference17 articles.
1. Loy CT, Irwin L. Accuracy of diagnostic tests read with and without clinical information: a systematic review. JAMA. 2004 Oct; 292(13).
2. Huete Á, Craig J, Vial C, Farías M, Tsunekawa H, Cuello M. Rol de la imagenología en el proceso diagnóstico de la patología ginecológica benigna. Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol. 2016 Feb; 81(1).
3. Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic tests 2: likelihood ratios, pre- and post-test probabilities and their use in clinical practice. Acta Pediatr. 2007 Apr; 96(4).
4. Woolcott R, Petchpud A. The efficacy of hysteroscopy: a comparison of women presenting with infertility versus other gynaecological symptoms. Auzt NZ J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995; 35(3).
5. Velásquez L, Ayala F, Ramos C, Rodriguez A, Balcázar R. Sensibilidad de la sonohisterografía vs. histerosalpingografía en la detección de patología endometrial en pacientes con infertilidad. An Radiol Mex. 2008; 3.