Skip to main content
Log in

Sensitivity of hysterosalpingography after tubal surgery

  • Originals
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Hysterosalpingography (HSG) to assess tubal patency in the post-operative evaluation of the infertile patient has been well described. However, the sensitivity and specificity of HSG after tubal surgery has not been reported. We correlated HSG and laparoscopic findings in 25 patients who had tubal surgery (microsurgical tubal reanastomoses [11] and distal salpingostomies [14]). HSG provided a more reliable means of assessing tubal patency (sensitivity and specificity of 96% and 61% respectively) than in detecting pelvic adhesive disease (PAD) (sensitivity and specificity of 12% and 75% respectively) regardless of tubal surgical procedure. HSG was associated with a high false negative rate (60%) due primarily to the inability to detect PAD. Complete agreement between HSG and laparoscopy was noted in only 15% of cases. These data suggest that HSG is a sensitive means to determine tubal patency, but was not sufficiently sensitive or specific to detect PAD after tubal surgery. These limitations should be noted in the interpretation of HSG in any infertile patient with a history of tubal surgery, and severely limits the application of HSG to the management of the post-operative infertile patient.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Fertility Society (1988) The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian abnormalities and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 49:944–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond MP, De Cherney AH (1987) Pathogenesis of adhesion formation/reformation: application to reproductive pelvic surgery. Microsurgery 8:103–107

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Duff DE, Fried AM, Wilson EA, Haack DG (1983) Hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy: a comparative study. AJR 141:761–763

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • El-Minawi MF, Abdel-Hadi M, Brahim AA, Wahby O (1978) Comparative evaluation of laparoscopy and hysterosalpingography in infertile patients. Obstet Gynecol 51:29–32

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gabos P (1976) A comparison of hysterosalpingography and endoscopy in evaluation of tubal function in infertile women. Fertil Steril 27:238–242

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins CJ (1977) Laparoscopy and hysterosalpingography in the assessment of tubal patency. Obstet Gynecol 49:325–327

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hulka JF (1985) Textbook of laparoscopy, 1st edn. Gruene and Stratton, Orlando, p 50–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Maathius JB, Norbach JGM, van Hall EV (1972) A comparison of the results of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in the diagnosis of fallopian tube dysfunction. Fertil Steril 23:428–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Philipsen T, Hansen BB (1981) Comparative study of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in infertile patients. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 60:149–151

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schwimmer M, Heiken JP, McClennan BL, Friedrich ER (1985) Postoperative hysterosalpingography: radiologic-surgical correlation. Radiology 157–317

  • Yoder IC (1988) Hysterosalpingography and pelvic ultrasound: imaging in infertility and gynecology, 1st edn. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, p 84–105

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Letterie, G.S., Haggerty, M.F. & Fellows, D.W. Sensitivity of hysterosalpingography after tubal surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 251, 175–180 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02718383

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02718383

Key words

Navigation