Magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography in diagnostic work-up of female infertility – comparison with conventional hysterosalpingography: a randomised study

Objective To compare diagnostic accuracy of MR-hysterosalpingography (MR-HSG) and conventional hysterosalpingography (X-HSG) in the evaluation of female infertility. Methods Forty women received prospectively both X-HSG, the gold standard technique, and MR-HSG on the same day but the order in which...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European radiology 2019-02, Vol.29 (2), p.501-508
Hauptverfasser: Volondat, Manuelle, Fontas, Eric, Delotte, Jerome, Fatfouta, Imene, Chevallier, Patrick, Chassang, Madleen
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective To compare diagnostic accuracy of MR-hysterosalpingography (MR-HSG) and conventional hysterosalpingography (X-HSG) in the evaluation of female infertility. Methods 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). Results 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). Conclusion 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. Key Points • 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.
ISSN:0938-7994
1432-1084
DOI:10.1007/s00330-018-5572-2