Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

Value of "Three Dimensional Multidetector CT Hysterosalpingography" in Infertile Patients with Non-Contributory Hysterosalpingography: A Prospective Study

Authors
1 Department of Radio-Diagnosis, University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi University, New Delhi, India; Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, New Delhi, India
2 Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, New Delhi, India; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi University, New Delhi, India
Abstract
Background: Infertility is a common health problem requiring imaging to delineate the anatomical causes in women. Three dimensional multi-detector computed tomography hysterosalpingography (3D-MDCT-HSG) offers an easy workup for uterine, tubal and peritoneal factors. Methods: To present the spectrum of uterine, tubal and peritoneal factors on 3D- MDCT-HSG and determine its diagnostic accuracy for female factor infertility, a prospective study was conducted on 25 infertile women with non-diagnostic HSG from November 2012 to March 2014. Sixty four slice MDCT acquired the scan during pre-ovulatory phase by contrast instillation into uterine cavity. A blinded reviewer interpreted the 3D-MDCT-HSG and results were compared with final diagnosis made on hystero-laproscopy in 22 patients. Diagnostic accuracy of 3D-MDCT-HSG for various factors was expressed as sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value. Results: MDCT-HSG demonstrated definite findings in 96% of patients having non-diagnostic HSG. In this study, tubal, uterine and peritoneal abnormalities were present in 68.75%, 56% and 32% of cases, respectively. 48 tubes in 25 patients were evaluated of which 22 tubes were blocked constituting the commonest finding present in 15 (60%) patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for uterine factors was 83.33% ,100%, 100% and 96.84%, respectively, for tubal factors 93.55%, 94.68%, 85.29% and 96.83%, respectively and for peritoneal factors 62.5%, 92%, 71.43% and 88.46%, respectively. Mean effective radiation dose was 1.76±0.18 mSv in MDCT-HSG. Conclusion: 3D-MDCT-HSG can detect various factors responsible for female infertility especially tubal and uterine; in cases where HSG fails to clearly delineate the pathology.
Keywords

  1. Rutstein SO, Shah IH. Infecundity, infertility, and childlessness in developing countries. Calverton, Maryland, USA: ORC Macro and the World Health Organization; 2004 Sept. 74 p. Report No.: DHS Comparative Reports No 9.
  2. Irvine DS. Epidemiology and aetiology of male infertility. Hum Reprod. 1998;13 Suppl 1:33-44.
  3. Steinkeler JA, Woodfield CA, Lazarus E, Hillstrom MM. Female infertility: a systematic approach to radiologic imaging and diagnosis. Radiographics. 2009;29(5):1353-70.
  4. Shalev J, Meizner I, Bar-Hava I, Dicker D, Mashiach R, Ben-Rafael Z. Predictive value of transvaginal sonography performed before routine diagnostic hysteroscopy for evaluation of infertility. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(2):412-7.
  5. Ragni G, Diaferia D, Vegetti W, Colombo M, Arnoldi M, Crosignani PG. Effectiveness of sonohysterography in infertile patient work-up: a comparison with transvaginal ultrasonography and hysteroscopy. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2005;59(4):184-8.
  6. Alborzi S, Dehbashi S, Khodaee R. Sonohysterosalpingographic screening for infertile patients. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;82(1):57-62.
  7. Imaoka I, Wada A, Matsuo M, Yoshida M, Kitagaki H, Sugimura K. MR imaging of disorders associated with female infertility: use in diagnosis, treatment, and management. Radiographics. 2003;23(6):1401-21.
  8. Saunders RD, Shwayder JM, Nakajima ST. Current methods of tubal patency assessment. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(7):2171-9.
  9. Rastogi R. Role of imaging in female infertility [Dr. K.M. Rai Memorial Oration Award]. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2010;20(3):168-73.
  10. Swart P, Mol BW, van der Veen F, van Beurden M, Redekop WK, Bossuyt PM. The accuracy of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(3):486-91.
  11. Sulak PJ, Letterie GS, Coddington CC, Woodward JE, Klein TA. Histology of proximal tubal occlusion. Fertil Steril. 1987;48(3):437-40.
  12. Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Baronio M, Martín López E, Vallejos J, Borghi M, et al. 64-Row multidetector CT virtual hysterosalpingography. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34(1):121-33.
  13. Carrascosa PM, Capuñay C, Vallejos J, Martín López EB, Baronio M, Carrascosa JM. Virtual hysterosalpingography: a new multidetector CT technique for evaluating the female reproductive system. Radiographics. 2010;30(3):643-61.
  14. Brown SE, Coddington CC, Schnorr J, Toner JP, Gibbons W, Oehninger S. Evaluation of outpatient hysteroscopy, saline infusion hysterosonography, and hysterosalpingography in infertile women: a prospective, randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(5):1029-34.
  15. Afzali N, Ahmadi F, Akhbari F. Various hysterosalpingography findings of female genital tuberculosis: A case series. Iran J Reprod Med. 2013;11(6):519-24.
  16. Valentini AL, Muzii L, Marana R, Catalano GF, Summaria V, Felici F, et al. Improvement of hysterosalpingographic accuracy in the diagnosis of peritubal adhesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175(4):1173-6.
  17. Patil M. Assessing tubal damage. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2009;2(1):2-11.
  18. Carrascosa P, Baronio M, Capuñay C, López EM, Sueldo C, Papier S. Clinical use of 64-row multislice computed tomography hysterosalpingography in the evaluation of female factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(5):1953-8.
  19. Zanetti E, Ferrari LR, Rossi G. Classification and radiographic features of uterine malformations: hysterosalpingographic study. Br J Radiol. 1978;51(603):161-70.
  20. Salim R, Regan L, Woelfer B, Backos M, Jurkovic D. A comparative study of the morphology of congenital uterine anomalies in women with and without a history of recurrent first trimester miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(1):162-6.
  21. Shaaban MM, Awwad IM, Al Beblawy MM, Khalil TH. Comparison between multidetector computed tomography and hysterosalpingography in assessment of infertile couples. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2013;18(3):191-5.
  22. Karasick S, Goldfarb AF. Peritubal adhesions in infertile women: diagnosis with hysterosalpingography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989;152(4):777-9.
  23. Perisinakis K, Damilakis J, Grammatikakis J, Theocharopoulos N, Gourtsoyiannis N. Radiogenic risks from hysterosalpingography. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(7):1522-8.