Skip to main content

Evaluation of Tubal Patency (HyCoSy, Doppler)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Tubal pathology is a significant contributor to subfertility, and therefore, assessment of the fallopian tubes forms an important and integral part of the fertility workup. An ideal method of tubal assessment should be sensitive and specific, be relatively safe, widely available and inexpensive. Laparoscopy and dye testing is the gold standard method of tubal assessment. However, this is associated with operative risks as well as financial implications. Hysterosalpingography was classically the first-line investigation; however, this too has its associated risks such as exposure to radiation. More recently, HyCoSy, which involves ultrasonographic tubal assessment using contrast media, has become more widespread. This involves a transvaginal scan, injection of contrast media through the cervix and observation of bilateral spill from the fimbrial ends of the fallopian tubes. Some investigators have used air as an inexpensive alternative to contrast media. The use of colour flow Doppler, which demonstrates flow of medium through the fallopian tube (as oppose to simply detecting spill from the fimbrial ends), has also been described. In this chapter, we aim to outline the assessment of tubal patency using ultrasound examination.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Steinkeler JA, Woodfield CA, Lazarus E, Hillstrom MM. Female infertility: a systematic approach to radiologic imaging and diagnosis. Radiographics. 2009;29:1353–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lim CP, Hasafa Z, Bhattacharya S, Maheswari A. Should a hysterosalpingogram be a first-line investigation to diagnose female tubal subfertility in the modern subfertility workup? Hum Reprod. 2011;26(5):967–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Watrelot A, Hamilton J, Grudzinskas JG. Advances in the assessment of the uterus and fallopian tube function. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;17(2):187–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lanzani C, Savasi V, Leone FP, Ratti M, Ferrazzi E. Two-dimensional HyCoSy with contrast tuned imaging technology and a second-generation contrast media for the assessment of tubal patency in an infertility program. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1158–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Coppus SFPJ, Opmeer BC, Logan S, Van der Veen F, Bhattacharya S, Mol BWJ. The predictive value of medical history taking and Chlamydia IgG ELISA antibody testing (CAT) in the selection of subfertile women for diagnostic laparoscopy: a clinical prediction model approach. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:1353–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Swart P, et al. The accuracy of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(3):486–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. den Hartog JE, Lardenoije CM, Severens JL, Land JA, Evers JL, Kessels AG. Screening strategies for tubal factor subfertility. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1840–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. National Collaboratry Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Fertility: Assessment and Treatment for People with Fertility Problems. Commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). London: RCOG Press 2004. ISBN 1-900364-97-2.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Broeze KA, Opmeer BC, Van Geloven N, Coppus SFPJ, Collins JA, den Hartog JE, et al. Are patient characteristics associated with the accuracy of hysterosalpingography in diagnosing tubal pathology? An individual patient data meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2011;17:293–300.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Spring DB, et al. Potential therapeutic effects of contrast materials in hysterosalpingography: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Radiology. 2000;214:53–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hart D, Hillier MC, Wall BF. HPA-RPD-029-doses to patients from radiographic and fluoroscopic X-ray imaging procedures in the UK – 2005. Review. 2009;2010:95.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tur-Kaspa I, Seidman DS, Soriano D, Greenberg I, Dor J, Bider D. Hysterosalpingography with a balloon catheter versus a metal cannula: a prospective, randomized, blinded comparative study. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:75–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nanini R, Chelo E, Branconi F, Tantini C, Scarselli GF. Dynamic echohysteroscopy: a new diagnostic technique in the study of female infertility. Acta Eur Fertil. 1981;12:165–71.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Campbell S, Bourne T, Tan S, Collins W. Hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography (HyCoSy) and its future role within the investigation of infertility in Europe. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1994;4:245–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Spieldoch RL, Winter TC, Schouweiler C, Ansay S, Evans MD, Lindheim SR. Optimal catheter placement during sonohysterography: a randomized controlled trial comparing cervical to uterine placement. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:15–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ayida G, Chamberlain P, Barlow D, Koninckx P, Golding S, Kennedy S. Is routine diagnostic laparoscopy for infertility still justified? A pilot-study assessing the use of hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(7):1436–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tanawattanacharoen S, Suwajanakorn S, Uerpairojkit B, Boonkasemsanti W, Virutamesan P. Transvaginal hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) compared with chromolaparoscopy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2000;26:71–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Exacoustos C, Di Giovanni A, Szabolcs B, Binder-Reisinger H, Gabardi C, Arduini D. Automated sonographic tubal patency evaluation with three-dimensional coded contrast imaging (CCI) during hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34:609–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhou L, Zhang X, Chen X, Liao L, Pan R, Zhou N, Di N. Value of three-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with SonoVue in the assessment of tubal patency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(1):93–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kalogirou D, Antoniou G, Botsis G, Kassanos D, Vitoratos N, Zioris C. Is colour Doppler necessary in the evaluation of tubal patency by hystero-contrast-sonography. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 1997;24(2):101–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sladkevicius P, Ojha K, Campbell S, Nargund G. Three-dimensional power Doppler imaging in the assessment of fallopian tube patency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16(7):644–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kamal Ojha MRCOG .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vinayagam, D., Ojha, K. (2014). Evaluation of Tubal Patency (HyCoSy, Doppler). In: Stadtmauer, L., Tur-Kaspa, I. (eds) Ultrasound Imaging in Reproductive Medicine. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9182-8_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9182-8_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-9181-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-9182-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics