Velázquez GL, Ayala GF, Ocampo LCR, Rodríguez BAI, Balcazar VR

Language: Spanish
References: 4
Page: 175-182
PDF size: 532.16 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine which is the most sensitive method between the sonohisterography and the histerosalpingography in the detection of the endometrial pathology (polyps, submucous myomas, adherences, hyperplasia endometrial) in patients with infertily.
Material and methods: A cohort, open and comparative study was carried out in the Radiology Service of the Regional Hospital “General Ignacio Zaragoza” between the month of March 2007 and the month of May 2008. 60 women in the reproductive stage were studied with infertility diagnosis, with the history of abnormal bleeding and previous echography suspicious of endometrial pathology, with an age ranging between 31 to 41 years old.
Results: In all patients, the sonohisterography was carried out in a first time and the histerosalpingography in the second time. The pathological sonohisterographic findings were: polyps 18 (30%), submucous myomas 11 (18%), sinequias six (10%), endometrial hyperplasia two (3.3%). Histerosalpingographic findings were polyps and submucous myomas 29 (48%) (the polyps and diagnosis were grouped in this study since the technique does not distinguish between both pathologies), sinequias three (5%), bihorned uterus one (1.6%), which was not identified by sonohisterography. The sonohisterography in relation to the histerosalpingography showed sensitivity: 80%, specificity: 96%, VPP: 96%, VPN: 80%.
Conclusions: The a sonohisterography is a study method to evaluate in the uterine pathology, with high sensibility and specificity, compared with the histerosalpingography diagnosing the endometrial anomalies, and shows that even both procedures are useful by evaluating the endouterine cavity, the sonohisterography has high sensitivity and specificity, and lasts less time, and is the easiest to carry out, less painful, does not use contrast median, nor ionizing radiation, evaluates the uterus and ovaries simultaneously and has less complications than histerosalpingography.

REFERENCES

1. Davis PC, O’ Neill MJ, Yoder IC, Lee SI, et al. Sonohysterographic findings of endometrial and subendometrial conditions Radiographics 2002; 22: 803-16.

2. Moldenhauer JS, Ostermeier GCH, Johnson A, Diamond MP, Krawetz SA. Diagnosing male factor infertility using microarrays. Journal of Andrology 2003; 24(6): 783-9.

3. Dalfó AR, Úbeda B, Úbeda A, Monzón M, et al. Diagnostic Value of Hysterosalpingography in the Detection of Intrauterine Abnormalities: A Comparison with Hysteroscopy. AJR 2004; 183: 1405-9.

4. Úbeda B, Paraira M, Alert E, Angel R. Spectrum of Normal Variants and Nonpathologic Findings. Abuin All authors: Department of Radiology, Institut Universitari Dexeus, P Bonanova, 67 pl-2, 08017 Barcelona, Spain. AJR 2001; 177: 131-5.