Magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography in diagnostic work-up of female infertility - comparison with conventional hysterosalpingography: a randomised study.
Adult
Fallopian Tube Diseases
/ complications
Female
Gadolinium
Humans
Hysterosalpingography
/ adverse effects
Infertility, Female
/ diagnostic imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ adverse effects
Pain
/ etiology
Sensitivity and Specificity
Urogenital Abnormalities
/ complications
Uterine Diseases
/ complications
Uterus
/ abnormalities
Fallopian tubes
Female infertility
Hysterosalpingography
Magnetic resonance imaging
Uterus
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
17
01
2018
accepted:
28
05
2018
revised:
17
05
2018
pubmed:
6
7
2018
medline:
26
2
2019
entrez:
6
7
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare diagnostic accuracy of MR-hysterosalpingography (MR-HSG) and conventional hysterosalpingography (X-HSG) in the evaluation of female infertility. Forty women received prospectively both X-HSG, the gold standard technique, and MR-HSG on the same day but the order in which they were conducted was randomised. A 1.5 Tesla MRI was performed with classical sequences for pelvic analysis and an additional 3D T1-weighted sequence with intra-uterine injection of gadolinium. Two radiologists independently interpreted X-HSG and MR-HSG according to randomisation, blinded to the other results. They both then performed a second interpretation of MR-HSG blinded to the first reading with a minimum time delay of 1 week. Diagnostic performance of MR-HSG for analysis of tubal and intracavity abnormalities was evaluated by calculating sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Twenty-six patients were included. Diagnostic performance of MR-HSG was: Se: 91.7% (95% CI 61.5-99.8); Sp: 92.9% (95% CI 66.1-99.8) ; PPV: 91.7% (95% CI 61.5-99.8); NPV: 92.9% (95% CI 66.1-99.8). Pain analysis showed a significant statistical difference between the two procedures: average VAS for X-HSG was 4.43 (95% CI 3.50-5.36) versus 3.46 (95% CI 2.62-4.31) for MR-HSG, p=0,01. Intra- and inter-rater agreements for detection of tubal or intracavity abnormalities were 0.92 (95% CI 0.78-1.00) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.52-1.00). MR-HSG is a well-tolerated technique demonstrating high accuracy in investigating tubal patency and intra-uterine abnormalities for diagnostic work-up of female infertility. • MR-hysterosalpingography is an innovative technique. • Hysterosalpingography can be used to investigate tubal patency and intracavity abnormalities. • Hysterosalpingography is a potential 'one-stop-shop' imaging technique for a single comprehensive examination of female infertility.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29974219
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5572-2
pii: 10.1007/s00330-018-5572-2
doi:
Substances chimiques
Gadolinium
AU0V1LM3JT
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
501-508Références
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Sep;175(3):774-6
pubmed: 10954465
Eur Radiol. 2001;11(8):1439-44
pubmed: 11519555
Hum Reprod. 2002 Dec;17(12):3138-41
pubmed: 12456613
Hum Reprod. 2006 May;21(5):1227-31
pubmed: 16476679
J Radiol. 2008 Jan;89(1 Pt 2):172-83
pubmed: 18288042
Medicina (Kaunas). 2008;44(6):439-48
pubmed: 18660638
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Nov;191(5):1381-5
pubmed: 18941073
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jan;204(1):79.e1-5
pubmed: 21187197
Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39(1):83-8
pubmed: 22675963
J Reprod Med. 2012 Sep-Oct;57(9-10):435-40
pubmed: 23091993
Hum Reprod. 2014 May;29(5):953-63
pubmed: 24578476
Acta Radiol. 2016 Sep;57(9):1132-9
pubmed: 26663038
Fertil Steril. 2016 Jun;105(6):1381-93
pubmed: 27054310
Fertil Steril. 2016 Jun;105(6):1403-1420.e7
pubmed: 27140290
J Magn Reson Imaging. 1996 Mar-Apr;6(2):300-4
pubmed: 9132095
Fertil Steril. 1997 Jun;67(6):1031-7
pubmed: 9176440