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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2019-02, Vol.29 (2), p.501-508 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
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 |