MR hysterosalpingography compared with conventional hysterosalpingography

Comparison between X-ray-hysterosalpingography and 3 Tesla magnetic resonance-hysterosalpingography in the assessment of the tubal patency in the cause of female infertility

OBJECTIVES

XR-hysterosalpingography currently represents the gold standard for tubal pathology evaluation. Magnetic resonance-HSG is an innovative technique. With our study, we aim to comprehend if and how MR-HSG, compared to traditional XR-HSG, could give us this additional information in the diagnostic/therapeutic process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 19 patients between 30 and 42 years old (average age 37.7) affected by infertility. Patients underwent contextually both XR-HSG and MR-HSG, using a single catheterization. The dynamic MR-HSG exam consisted a MR sequence during contrast administration through the cervical catheter.

RESULTS

Both XR-HSG and MR-HSG documented that 15 of the 19 patients had bilateral tubal patency, while four patients had monolateral tubal patency. However, MR-HSG allowed us to diagnose additional findings: Two active endometriosis foci in adnexal localization and a condition of adenomyosis A unicornuate uterus malformation A submucous uterine myoma near the tubal ostium A decrease of the ovarian reserve in a patient So MR-HSG could potentially detect in 10/19 (52%) women the cause of their infertility, compared to 4/19 (21%) detected with XR-HSG and about 30% of women would have resulted as false negatives if we only used XR-HSG. Finally, with a questionnaire, we demonstrated that MR-HSG is less painful than XR-HSG.

CONCLUSIONS

These data thus confirm that XR-HSG and MR-HSG present the same diagnostic of assessing tubal patency. We also demonstrated that MR-HSG is able to detect further collateral findings that could likewise be a possible therapeutic target and it could possibly become the new gold standard in female infertility diagnostics.

Conventional and magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography in assessing tubal patency-A comparative study

Context:

Tubal factors, one of the leading causes of female infertility, have been conventionally evaluated by hysterosalpingography (HSG). The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in assessing female infertility is gaining importance because of its inherent efficiency in detecting structural abnormalities. Magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography (MR HSG) is less invasive and avoids exposure of ovaries to ionizing radiation. Its utility is extrapolated to visualize fallopian tubes.

Aims:

To assess the diagnostic accuracies of dynamic MR HSG and conventional HSG (cHSG) in identifying tubal patency in women with infertility using diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) as gold standard.

Materials and Methods:

A prospective study of 40 patients was conducted over a period of 6 months. The patients were subjected to MR HSG followed by cHSG during the preovulatory period. If tubes were blocked, the patients were subjected to DL in the next menstrual cycle. If the tubes were patent and there was failure of conception, they were subjected to DL in the interval of 3 months.

Results:

Twenty-four patients had bilateral tubal spill which was confirmed using cHSG and DL. One patient had discordant MR HSG and cHSG results and six patients had discordant MR HSG and DL results. No statistical difference was observed between MR HSG and cHSG.

Conclusion:

Pelvic MRI is an inevitable tool in infertility evaluation. MR HSG can be used in addition as it avoids exposure of the reproductive organs to radiation and has the same efficacy as cHSG.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Female Infertility

The most common known causes of female infertility are male factor (26%), ovulatory failure (21%), and tubal damage (14%), while in 28% a couple's infertility remains unexplained. Female-specific causes of infertility include deterioration of oocyte quality with increasing maternal age; ovulatory disorders, most notably polycystic ovarian syndrome; history of salpingitis such as that caused by chlamydia infection; endometriosis; and uterine cavity abnormalities interfering with implantation causing inability to become pregnant or causing recurrent pregnancy loss. These potential causes of female infertility are discussed in this document and the appropriate imaging recommendations for each variant are provided. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.