Advertisement

Pitfalls

  • Patricia Carrascosa
  • Carlos Capuñay
  • Carlos E. Sueldo
  • Juan Mariano Baronio
Chapter

Abstract

In each virtual hysterosalpingography (VHSG) study there is a potential risk of carrying out an incorrect diagnosis. The VHSG has shown sensibility and specificity results similar to those of the conventional hysterosalpingography study. Nevertheless, a great number of false interpretations can affect the general validity of the method; the most efficient strategy to prevent the pitfalls is to appropriately solve the diagnostic errors which arise from false positives and negatives.

Keywords

Uterine Cavity Uterine Wall Cervical Canal Endometrial Cavity Elevated Lesion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Carrascosa P, Baronio M, Capuñay C, et al. Multidetector computed tomography virtual hysterosalpingography in the investigation of the uterus and fallopian tubes. Eur J Radiol. 2008;67(3):531–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carrascosa P, Baronio M, Capuñay C, et al. Clinical use of 64-row multislice computed tomography hysterosalpingography in the evaluation of female factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(5):1953–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mang T, Maier A, Plank C, et al. Pitfalls in multi-detector row CT colonography: a systematic approach. Radiographics. 2007;27:431–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Norman GR, Eva KW. Diagnostic error and clinical reasoning. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):94–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mamede S, Schmidt HG, Rikers R. Diagnostic errors and reflective practice in medicine. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13(1):138–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Croskerry P. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med. 2003;78(8):775–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graber M, Gordon R, Franklin N. Reducing diagnostic errors in medicine: what’s the goal? Acad Med. 2002;77(10):981–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carrascosa PM, Capuñay C, Vallejos J, et al. Virtual hysterosalpingography: a new multidetector CT technique for evaluating the female reproductive system. Radiographics. 2010;30(3):643–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ubeda B, Paraira M, Alert E, et al. Hysterosalpingography: spectrum of normal variants and nonpathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(1):131–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile female: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:302–7.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Steinkeler JA, Woodfield CA, Lazarus E, et al. Female infertility: a systematic approach to radiologic imaging and diagnosis. Radiographics. 2009;29(5):1353–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ott DJ, Fayez JA. Tubal and adnexal abnormalities. In: Ott DJ, Fayez JA, Zagoria RJ, editors. Hysterosalpingography: a text and atlas. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1998. p. 90–3.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tur-Kaspa I. Hysterosalpingography with a balloon catheter versus a metal cannula: a prospective, randomized, blinded comparative study. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:75–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Vallejos J, et al. Virtual hysterosalpingography: experience with over 1000 consecutive patients. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36(1):1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Carrascosa
    • 1
  • Carlos Capuñay
    • 1
  • Carlos E. Sueldo
    • 2
  • Juan Mariano Baronio
    • 3
  1. 1.Diagnóstico MaipúBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.CEGYRBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations