Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (16)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hamilton, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Grudzinskas, J. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hamilton, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Grudzinskas, J. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol 13, 2463-2473, Copyright © 1998 by Oxford University Press

ARTICLES

Routine use of saline hysterosonography in 500 consecutive, unselected, infertile women

JA Hamilton, AJ Larson, AM Lower, S Hasnain and JG Grudzinskas
The Fertility Centre, Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St. Bartholomew's and the Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, St. Bartholomew's Hospital, UK.

Saline hysterosonography was attempted as a routine, first-line screening test of uterine structure in 500 consecutive, unselected, infertile women. The procedure was completed in 96.8% (484/500) women and the observations were interpretable in 483 of these women. Intrauterine pathology was suspected in 67/499 (13.4%) women on plain ultrasound scan and 58/484 (12%) women with saline hysterosonography. Ultrasound alone had a superior specificity (96.3%) to sensitivity (81.8%) and better negative (97.6%) than positive (73.8%) predictive value for the detection of any intrauterine abnormality, using saline hysterosonography as the reference procedure. Suspected pathology at saline hysterosonography led to hysteroscopy in 20 women, after a median of 5.7 months (range, 1-14). The overall concordance rate between the two procedures was 65% with lesions suspicious of intrauterine polyps not present at subsequent hysteroscopy on six occasions. Criteria were established to help identify women with potentially self-limiting lesions, in whom a re-scan should be considered before resorting to hysteroscopy. The procedure was well tolerated with no significant complications. Saline hysterosonography appeared to be an acceptable first-line screening procedure for uterine structure which enhanced the predictive power of ultrasound alone for uterine anomalies and provided additional information which was potentially of value when planning operative hysteroscopy.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
M. Hajishafiha, T. Zobairi, V. R. Zanjani, M. Ghasemi-Rad, Z. Yekta, and N. Mladkova
Diagnostic Value of Sonohysterography in the Determination of Fallopian Tube Patency as an Initial Step of Routine Infertility Assessment
J. Ultrasound Med., December 1, 2009; 28(12): 1671 - 1677.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
S. H. Saravelos, K. A. Cocksedge, and T.-C. Li
Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal
Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2008; 14(5): 415 - 429.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
D. Nirmal, A.N. Griffiths, G. Jose, and J. Evans
Warming Echovist contrast medium for hysterocontrastsonography and the effect on the incidence of pelvic pain. A randomized controlled study
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2006; 21(4): 1052 - 1054.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
Optimal use of infertility diagnostic tests and treatments
Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2000; 15(3): 723 - 732.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.