Initial results of magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography diagnostic performance
Vol 5, Issue 2, 2022
VIEWS - 485 (Abstract) 224 (PDF)
Abstract
Objective: to determine the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography (HSG-MRI), using laparoscopy as the reference method. Materials and methods: 22 patients were included. All underwent HSG-MRI with a 1.5 Tesla resonator and then laparoscopy with chromotubation. Two radiologists examined the MRIs, determining tubal patency by consensus. Descriptive and diagnostic performance analyses were performed. Results: HSG-MRI had a success rate of 91%. Study duration was 49 ± 15 minutes, volume injected 26 ± 16 cm3 and pain scale 30 ± 19 out of 100. Sensitivity and specificity of HSG-MRI were 100% for global and left Cotte test, and 25% and 93.3% for right Cotte test, respectively. There were 2 minor complications and no major complications. Discussion: our initial results demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity. Although other studies analyzed the ability of HSG-MRI to assess tubal patency with good results, the use of a flawed reference standard left room for reasonable doubt, preventing a recommendation based on solid evidence. However, when comparing our results with those published, we observed a high degree of concordance insofar as the positive effusion is correctly diagnosed with a specificity of 100% or with a percentage close to this figure.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Frye RE, Ascher SM, Thomasson D. MR hysterosalpingography: Protocol development and refinement for simulating normal and abnormal fallopian tube patency-feasibility study with a phantom. Radiology 2000; 214: 107–112.
2. Krysiewicz S. Infertility in women: Diagnostic evaluation with hysterosalpingography and other imaging techniques. American Journal of Roentgenology 1992; 159: 253–261.
3. Imaoka I, Wada A, Matsuo M, et al. MR imaging of disorders associated with female infertility: Use in diagnosis, treatment, and management. Radiographics 2003; 23: 1401–1421.
4. Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: Imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 2004; 233: 19–34.
5. Woodward PJ, Wagner BJ, Farley TE. MR imaging in the evaluation of female infertility. Radiographics 1993; 13: 293–310.
6. Swart P, Mol BW, van der Veen F, et al. The accuracy of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology: A meta-analysis. Fertility and Sterility 1995; 64: 486–491.
7. Broeze KA, Opmeer BC, Van Geloven N, et al. Are patient characteristics associated with the accuracy of hysterosalpingography in diagnosing tubal pathology? An individual patient data meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update 2011; 17: 293–300.
8. De Felice C, Rech F, Marini A, et al. Magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography in the evaluation of tubal patency in infertile women: An observational study. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics and Gynecology 2012; 39: 83–88.
9. Freeman-Walsh CB, Fahrig R, Ganguly A, et al. A hybrid radiography/MRI system for combining hysterosalpingography and MRI in infertility patients: Initial experience. American Journal of Roentgenology 2008; 190: W157–W160.
10. Furuhashi M, Miyabe Y, Katsumata Y, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging with gadolinium-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid is useful in assessment of tubal patency in a patient with iodine-induced hypothyroidism. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 1998; 16: 339–341.
11. Ma L, Wu G, Wang Y, et al. Fallopian tubal patency diagnosed by magnetic resonance hysterosalpin-gography. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2012; 57: 435–440.
12. Sadowski EA, Ochsner JE, Riherd JM, et al. MR hysterosalpingography with an angiographic time-resolved 3D pulse sequence: assessment of tubal patency. American Journal of Roentgenology 2008; 191: 1381–1385.
13. Unterweger M, De Geyter C, Frohlich JM, et al. Three-dimensional dynamic MR-hysterosalpingography; A new, low invasive, radiation-free and less painful radiological approach to female infertility. Human Reproduction 2002; 17: 3138–3141.
14. Wiesner W, Ruehm SG, Bongartz G, et al. Three-dimensional dynamic MR hysterosalpingography: A preliminary report. European Radiology 2001; 11: 1439–1444.
15. Winter L, Glucker T, Steimann S, et al. Feasibility of dynamic MR-hysterosalpingography for the diagnostic work-up of infertile women. Acta Radiologica 2010; 51: 693–701.
16. Belt MM, Rodenko G, Taylor K, et al. Use of gadolinium for hysterosalpingography in iodine allergic women: A case-control study. Fertility and Sterility 2008; 90: 835–838.
17. De Caro G, Ferraiolo A, Castelletti L, et al. Hysterosalpingography with gadolinium. European Radiology 2005; 15: 1469–1471.
18. Silberzweig JE, Khorsandi AS, Caldon M, et al. Gadolinium for hysterosalpingography. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2008; 53: 15–19.
19. Harpur ES, Worah D, Hals PA, et al. Preclinical safety assessment and pharmacokinetics of gadodiamide injection, a new magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent. Investigative Radiology 1993; 28(Suppl 1): S28–S43.
20. Rouanet De Lavit JP, Maubon AJ, Thurmond AS. MR hysterography performed with saline injection and fluid attenuated inversion recovery sequences: Initial experience. American Journal of Roentgenology 2000; 175: 774–776.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24294/irr.v5i2.1755
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.