Uterine cavity assessment prior to in vitro fertilization: comparison of transvaginal scanning, saline contrast hysterosonography and hysteroscopy

A total of 44 patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) and requiring uterine cavity assessment agreed to have both saline contrast hysterosonography (SCHS) and hysteroscopy. SCHS was performed following a baseline transvaginal scan by injection of saline into the uterine cavity during continuous scanning. Hysteroscopy was performed with a flexible fiberscope with a 3.6-mm outer diameter; 38 of 44 women (86%) underwent both procedures. Hysteroscopy diagnosed intrauterine abnormalities in 16 women. SCHS was in complete agreement in 13 of 16 cases. As a screening test for any cavity abnormality, SCHS had a 87.5% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% positive predictive value and 91.6% negative predictive value. In 14 women, an abnormal uterine cavity was apparent on transvaginal scanning (TVS). However, TVS, unlike SCHS, could not (1) confidently diagnose submucosal fibroids in the presence of a uterus with multiple fibroids; (2) distinguish between a hyperplastic endometrium and a large polyp; or (3) differentiate between an arcuate and a septate uterus. In addition, ovarian pathology was diagnosed on TVS in five women: endometrioma (n = 1), complex cysts (n = 2) and polycystic ovaries (n = 2). SCHS is a simple, accurate, well-tolerated procedure that can be performed within a fertility unit, avoiding invasive and expensive diagnostic hysteroscopy. Significant findings can be treated by operative hysteroscopy prior to commencing an IVF treatment cycle.

Is routine diagnostic laparoscopy for infertility still justified? A pilot study assessing the use of hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography and magnetic resonance imaging

We assessed the value of hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as alternatives to laparoscopy and dye insufflation with or without hysteroscopy in the investigation of infertility. A total of 19 women had all three procedures, in addition, one became pregnant after HyCoSy alone. The findings were: uterine fibroids (n = 5), minimal-mild endometriosis (n = 4) and moderate-severe endometriosis (n = 3) including one case of bilateral endometriomas, endometrial polyp (n = 1), polycystic ovaries (n = 2), bilateral dermoid cysts (n = 1), haemorrhagic corpus luteal cyst (n = 1) and minimal adhesions (n = 3). At laparoscopy, 31/37 tubes were patent and there was 84% concordance with the tubal patency findings at HyCoSy. The uterine fibroids and ovarian cysts were detected using transvaginal scanning; the endometrial polyp and a congenital uterine anomaly were identified using HyCoSy. These findings were detected using MRI, but in addition the technique distinguished the dermoid cysts from the endometriomas, identified the two other cases of moderate-severe endometriosis, fibroids <2 cm (n = 2) and adenomyosis (n = 5), and interpreted the haemorrhagic corpus luteum as an endometrioma. Our data suggest that women with normal HyCoSy and MRI findings have a normal pelvis and may not need routine surgical investigation.

Contrast sonography for uterine cavity assessment: a comparison of conventional two-dimensional with three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound; a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To compare conventional two- (2-D) and three-dimensional (3-D) scanning of the uterine cavity with and without saline contrast medium.

DESIGN

Observational pilot study.

SETTING

University-based fertility service.

PATIENT(S)

Ten IVF patients requiring uterine cavity assessment.

INTERVENTION(S)

Two-dimensional and 3-D transvaginal scans before and after injection of saline into the uterine cavity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Number and type of uterine cavity abnormalities detected by each technique.

RESULT(S)

The 2-D scanning suggested cavity abnormalities in 4 of 10 women (fibroids, 3; hyperechoeic thick endometrium, 1). The 3-D scanning confirmed these and revealed one additional abnormality suggestive of a uterine septum. The 2-D scanning with saline injection diagnosed abnormalities in 5 of 10 (uterine septum, 1; fibroids, 3; endometrial polyp, 1). The 3-D contrast scanning with saline did not add any further information to 2-D contrast scanning with saline.

CONCLUSION(S)

In this pilot study, 3-D scanning to assess the uterine cavity appeared to offer no advantages over conventional 2-D contrast sonography.

Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) using Echovist-200 in the outpatient investigation of infertility patients

This study describes the introduction of hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) as a first line outpatient investigation of uterine and tubal factors in two fertility units. 136 infertile women had transvaginal scanning before and during the intrauterine injection of contrast medium (Echovist-200). HyCoSy was successfully completed in 132 cases (97%) within a mean time of 12.6 +/- 8.4 (4-50) min. The uterus and its cavity appeared normal in 108 (82%) women. Uterine abnormalities in the remaining 24 women (18%) included structural abnormality (n = 7), fibroids (n = 12) and endometrial polyps (n = 5). A total of 261 fallopian tubes in 132 women were assessed: 186 (71%) appeared patent and 55 (21%) blocked. The remaining 20 (8%) could not be assessed for technical reasons. Polycystic ovaries and ovarian cysts were diagnosed in eight women. The most common adverse effect was mild/moderate pain, similar to period pain, with 24 (18%) women requiring simple analgesia. HyCoSy is a simple and well tolerated outpatient procedure. The technique provides clinically valuable information about tubal patency, ovarian and uterine abnormalities.

A comparison of patient tolerance of hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) with Echovist-200 and X-ray hysterosalpingography for outpatient investigation of infertile women

The aim of this study was to assess patient tolerance of two outpatient tests. Sixty-six infertile women were prospectively randomized to hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) (n = 34) or X-ray hysterosalpingography (HSG) (n = 32). The procedures were performed by the same operator. The uterine cavity outline and tubal patency were determined by both procedures. The mean times taken and the volume of contrast medium required for HyCoSy and HSG were similar: 12.1 +/- 5.2 and 9.5 +/- 4.8 min and 9.4 +/- 5.2 and 11.5 +/- 8.4 ml, respectively. Side-effects were assessed during the procedure, at 2 h, 24 h and 28 days. The most common side-effect was pelvic pain, in 56/66 (84%) women, occurring during the procedures (HyCoSy 19/34 (56%); HSG 23/32 (72/%)) and/or in the following 24 h (HyCoSy 14/34 (41%); HSG 15/32 (47%)). This was described as less severe or equal to their usual period pains (HyCoSy 100%; HSG 85%). Only 12/66 (18%) women required simple non-steroidal analgesia (HyCoSy 8/34 (24%); HSG 4/32 (13%)). There were no significant differences between the two methods concerning the frequency or severity of pains at different stages during and after the procedure or analgesia requirements. HyCoSy and HSG are equally well tolerated outpatient procedures for assessing tubal patency and uterine abnormalities. In addition, HyCoSy avoids the risks of ovarian irradiation and allows scanning of the uterine corpus and ovaries at the same time.