Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 251, Issue 4, pp 175–180 | Cite as

Sensitivity of hysterosalpingography after tubal surgery

  • G. S. Letterie
  • M. F. Haggerty
  • D. W. Fellows
Originals

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.

Key words

Post-operative hysterosalpingography Laparoscopy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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 49:944–454Google Scholar
  2. Diamond MP, De Cherney AH (1987) Pathogenesis of adhesion formation/reformation: application to reproductive pelvic surgery. Microsurgery 8:103–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Duff DE, Fried AM, Wilson EA, Haack DG (1983) Hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy: a comparative study. AJR 141:761–763PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. El-Minawi MF, Abdel-Hadi M, Brahim AA, Wahby O (1978) Comparative evaluation of laparoscopy and hysterosalpingography in infertile patients. Obstet Gynecol 51:29–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gabos P (1976) A comparison of hysterosalpingography and endoscopy in evaluation of tubal function in infertile women. Fertil Steril 27:238–242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hutchins CJ (1977) Laparoscopy and hysterosalpingography in the assessment of tubal patency. Obstet Gynecol 49:325–327PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hulka JF (1985) Textbook of laparoscopy, 1st edn. Gruene and Stratton, Orlando, p 50–52Google Scholar
  8. 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 23:428–431Google Scholar
  9. Philipsen T, Hansen BB (1981) Comparative study of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in infertile patients. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 60:149–151PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Schwimmer M, Heiken JP, McClennan BL, Friedrich ER (1985) Postoperative hysterosalpingography: radiologic-surgical correlation. Radiology 157–317Google Scholar
  11. Yoder IC (1988) Hysterosalpingography and pelvic ultrasound: imaging in infertility and gynecology, 1st edn. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, p 84–105Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. S. Letterie
    • 1
  • M. F. Haggerty
    • 2
  • D. W. Fellows
    • 2
  1. 1.Reproductive Endocrinology Service, Section of Obstetrics and Gynecology (X8-OB)Virginia Mason ClinicSeattle
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyTripler Army Medical CenterHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations