Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
To determine whether an increase in cul de sac (CDS) fluid after hysteroscopy is predictive of tubal patency.
Methods
In a prospective clinical cohort study, 115 subfertile women undergoing laparoscopic and hysteroscopic surgery at the Medical University of Vienna were invited to participate. The primary outcome was determining whether an increase in fluid in the pouch of Douglas was reflective of unilateral or bilateral tubal patency. Vaginal sonography before and after hysteroscopy was performed to detect fluid in the pouch of Douglas, directly followed by laparoscopy with chromopertubation.
Results
Laparoscopic chromopertubation revealed bilateral Fallopian tube occlusion in 28 women (24.3%). Twenty-seven/40 patients (67.5%) with no fluid shift had bilateral occlusion during the consecutive laparoscopy (p < 0.001). One/75 patients (1.3%) showing a fluid shift had bilateral occlusion (sensitivity of a present fluid shift for uni- or bilateral patency 85.1%, 95% CI: 81.7–99.9, specificity: 96.4%, 95% CI: 75.8–91.8). Intracavitary abnormalities (odds ratio, OR, 0.038; p = 0.030) and adhesions covering one or both tubes (OR 0.076; p = 0.041) increased the risk for a false abnormal result, i.e., uni- or bilateral tubal patency despite the lack of a fluid shift.
Conclusion
When CDS fluid does not change after hysteroscopy, this is a sensitive test for tubal occlusion and further testing may be warranted. However, if there is an increase in CDS fluid after hysteroscopy, particularly for a patient without fluid present prior, this is both sensitive and specific for unilateral or bilateral tubal patency.
Funder
Medical University of Vienna
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Obstetrics and Gynecology,General Medicine
Reference17 articles.
1. Campo R, Meier R, Dhont N, Mestdagh G, Ombelet W (2014) Implementation of hysteroscopy in an infertility clinic: the one-stop uterine diagnosis and treatment. Facts Views Vision ObGyn 6:235–239
2. Parry JP, Isaacson KB (2019) Hysteroscopy and why macroscopic uterine factors matter for fertility. Fertil Steril 112:203–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.06.031
3. Di Spiezio SA, Taylor A, Tsirkas P, Mastrogamvrakis G, Sharma M, Magos A (2008) Hysteroscopy: a technique for all? Analysis of 5000 outpatient hysteroscopies. Fertil Steril 89:438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.02.056
4. Guida M, Di Spiezio SA, Acunzo G, Sparice S, Bramante S, Piccoli R, Bifulco G, Cirillo D, Pellicano M, Nappi C (2006) Vaginoscopic versus traditional office hysteroscopy: a randomized controlled study. Hum Reprod 21:3253. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del298
5. Godinjak Z, Idrizbegović E (2008) Should diagnostic hysteroscopy be a routine procedure during diagnostic laparoscopy in infertile women? Bosnian J Basic Med Sci 8:44–47. https://doi.org/10.17305/bjbms.2008.2996
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献