Evaluation of outpatient hysteroscopy, saline infusion hysterosonography, and hysterosalpingography in infertile women: a prospective, randomized study

• Published in: Fertility and sterility Vol. 74; no. 5; pp. 1029 - 1034
• Main Authors: Brown, Samuel E, Coddington, Charles C, Schnorr, John, Toner, James P, Gibbons, William, Oehninger, Sergio
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, NY Elsevier Inc 01.11.2000; Elsevier Science
• Subjects: Adult; Ambulatory Care; Biological and medical sciences; Endoscopy; Female; Genital system; Humans; Hysterosalpingography; Hysteroscopy; infertility; Infertility, Female - diagnosis; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Medical sciences; office hysteroscopy; operative hysteroscopy; Prospective Studies; saline infusion hysterosonography; Sodium Chloride; Ultrasonography; Uterus - diagnostic imaging; office hysteroscopy; Hysterosalpingography; saline infusion hysterosonography; infertility; operative hysteroscopy; Human; Randomization; Uterus; Female genital system; Female; Female sterility; Diagnosis; Ultrasound; Comparative study; Hysterography; Female genital diseases
• ISSN: 0015-0282; 1556-5653
• DOI: 10.1016/S0015-0282(00)01541-7

Objective: To compare the diagnostic accuracy, pain scores, and procedure length of outpatient hysteroscopy (OHS), hysterosalpingography (HSG), and saline infusion hysterosonography (SIS) for evaluation of the uterine cavity of infertile women. Design: Prospective, randomized, investigator-blind study. Setting: Tertiary infertility clinic. Patient(s): Forty-six consecutive infertile women. Intervention(s): Outpatient HSG, OHS, and SIS, followed by operative hysteroscopy (HS). Main Outcome Measure(s): Uterine abnormalities, procedure length, and subjective pain. Result(s): Fifty-nine percent of infertile subjects were found to have an abnormality on at least one of three outpatient uterine evaluations. When compared with the case of definitive operative HS, 60% of abnormalities were correctly classified by HSG, 72% by OHS, and 52% by SIS ( P: NS). When comparing all combinations of 2 outpatient screening tests to operative hysteroscopy, 68% were correctly classified by HSG/OHS, 58% by HSG/SIS, and 64% by OHS/SIS ( P: NS). The average time length for the OHS was 9.1 min., which was significantly greater than for both HSG (average, 5.3 min) and SIS (average, 6.1 min.) ( P<.0001 for both). HSG and SIS were not statistically different regarding procedure time length. The average pain score (0–10) for SIS was 2.7, compared with 5.8 and 5.3 for HSG and OHS, respectively. Both HSG and OHS mean pain scores were significantly greater than the SIS mean. Conclusion(s): OHS, SIS, and HSG were statistically equivalent regarding evaluation of uterine cavity pathology in infertile women.