Catherine H Phillips, Carol B Benson, Elizabeth S Ginsburg, Mary C Frates
{"title":"女性不孕症患者经阴道超声、子宫输卵管造影和宫腔镜检查子宫和输卵管病理的比较。","authors":"Catherine H Phillips, Carol B Benson, Elizabeth S Ginsburg, Mary C Frates","doi":"10.1186/s40738-015-0012-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The causes of female infertility are multifactorial and necessitate comprehensive evaluation including physical examination, hormonal testing, and imaging. Given the associated psychological and financial stress that imaging can cause, infertility patients benefit from a structured and streamlined evaluation. The goal of such a work up is to evaluate the uterus, endometrium, and fallopian tubes for anomalies or abnormalities potentially preventing normal conception. To date, the standard method for assessing these structures typically involves some combination of transvaginal sonography (TVS), hysterosalpingography (HSG), and hysteroscopy (HSC). The goal of this review is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of TVS, HSG, and HSC for diagnosing abnormalities in infertility patients to determine if all studies are necessary for pre-treatment evaluation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified infertility patients prior to initiation of assisted reproductive technology who had baseline TVS, HSG, and HSC within 180 days of each other. From medical record review, we compared frequencies of each finding between modalities. Of the 1274 patients who received a baseline TVS over 2 years, 327 had TVS and HSG within 180 days and 55 patients had TVS, HSG and HSC. Of the 327, TVS detected fibroids more often than HSG (74 vs. 5, <i>p</i> < .0001), and adenomyosis more often than HSG (7 vs. 2, <i>p</i> = .02). HSG detected tubal obstruction more often than TVS (56 vs. 8, <i>p</i> = .002). Four (1.2 %) patients had endometrial polyps on both HSG and TVS. In the 55 patients with HSG, TVS, and HSC, HSC identified endometrial polyps more often than TVS (10 vs. 1, <i>p</i> = .0001) and HSG (10 vs. 2, <i>p</i> = .0007). TVS detected more fibroids than HSC (17 vs. 5, <i>p</i> < .0001). Tubal obstruction was identified more often by HSG than HSC (19 vs. 5, <i>p</i> < .0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>TVS is superior for evaluation of myometrial pathology. HSG is superior for evaluation of tubal pathologies. Endometrial pathologies are best identified with HSC.</p>","PeriodicalId":87254,"journal":{"name":"Fertility research and practice","volume":"1 ","pages":"20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40738-015-0012-3","citationCount":"23","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of uterine and tubal pathology identified by transvaginal sonography, hysterosalpingography, and hysteroscopy in female patients with infertility.\",\"authors\":\"Catherine H Phillips, Carol B Benson, Elizabeth S Ginsburg, Mary C Frates\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40738-015-0012-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The causes of female infertility are multifactorial and necessitate comprehensive evaluation including physical examination, hormonal testing, and imaging. Given the associated psychological and financial stress that imaging can cause, infertility patients benefit from a structured and streamlined evaluation. The goal of such a work up is to evaluate the uterus, endometrium, and fallopian tubes for anomalies or abnormalities potentially preventing normal conception. To date, the standard method for assessing these structures typically involves some combination of transvaginal sonography (TVS), hysterosalpingography (HSG), and hysteroscopy (HSC). The goal of this review is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of TVS, HSG, and HSC for diagnosing abnormalities in infertility patients to determine if all studies are necessary for pre-treatment evaluation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified infertility patients prior to initiation of assisted reproductive technology who had baseline TVS, HSG, and HSC within 180 days of each other. From medical record review, we compared frequencies of each finding between modalities. Of the 1274 patients who received a baseline TVS over 2 years, 327 had TVS and HSG within 180 days and 55 patients had TVS, HSG and HSC. Of the 327, TVS detected fibroids more often than HSG (74 vs. 5, <i>p</i> < .0001), and adenomyosis more often than HSG (7 vs. 2, <i>p</i> = .02). HSG detected tubal obstruction more often than TVS (56 vs. 8, <i>p</i> = .002). Four (1.2 %) patients had endometrial polyps on both HSG and TVS. In the 55 patients with HSG, TVS, and HSC, HSC identified endometrial polyps more often than TVS (10 vs. 1, <i>p</i> = .0001) and HSG (10 vs. 2, <i>p</i> = .0007). TVS detected more fibroids than HSC (17 vs. 5, <i>p</i> < .0001). Tubal obstruction was identified more often by HSG than HSC (19 vs. 5, <i>p</i> < .0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>TVS is superior for evaluation of myometrial pathology. HSG is superior for evaluation of tubal pathologies. Endometrial pathologies are best identified with HSC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fertility research and practice\",\"volume\":\"1 \",\"pages\":\"20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-12-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40738-015-0012-3\",\"citationCount\":\"23\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fertility research and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40738-015-0012-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2015/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fertility research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40738-015-0012-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23
摘要
背景:女性不孕症的病因是多因素的,需要体格检查、激素检测和影像学检查等综合评价。考虑到影像学可能引起的相关心理和经济压力,不孕症患者受益于结构化和简化的评估。这种检查的目的是评估子宫、子宫内膜和输卵管的异常或可能妨碍正常受孕的异常。迄今为止,评估这些结构的标准方法通常包括经阴道超声(TVS)、子宫输卵管造影(HSG)和宫腔镜(HSC)的结合。本综述的目的是比较TVS、HSG和HSC诊断不孕症患者异常的准确性,以确定是否所有研究都需要进行治疗前评估。结果:我们确定了在开始辅助生殖技术之前,在180天内进行基线TVS、HSG和HSC检查的不孕症患者。从病历回顾中,我们比较了不同模式之间每种发现的频率。在2年内接受基线TVS的1274例患者中,327例患者在180天内同时接受TVS和HSG, 55例患者同时接受TVS、HSG和HSC。在327例中,TVS检测到肌瘤的频率高于HSG(74比5,p p = 0.02)。HSG比TVS更常发现输卵管阻塞(56比8,p = 0.002)。4例(1.2%)患者在HSG和TVS检查中均有子宫内膜息肉。在55例伴有HSG、TVS和HSC的患者中,HSC比TVS(10比1,p = 0.0001)和HSG(10比2,p = 0.0007)更常发现子宫内膜息肉。TVS比HSC检出更多的肌瘤(17 vs. 5, p . p .)结论:TVS在子宫肌瘤病理评价中具有优越性。输卵管造影在评估输卵管病变方面具有优势。子宫内膜病变最好与HSC鉴别。
Comparison of uterine and tubal pathology identified by transvaginal sonography, hysterosalpingography, and hysteroscopy in female patients with infertility.
Background: The causes of female infertility are multifactorial and necessitate comprehensive evaluation including physical examination, hormonal testing, and imaging. Given the associated psychological and financial stress that imaging can cause, infertility patients benefit from a structured and streamlined evaluation. The goal of such a work up is to evaluate the uterus, endometrium, and fallopian tubes for anomalies or abnormalities potentially preventing normal conception. To date, the standard method for assessing these structures typically involves some combination of transvaginal sonography (TVS), hysterosalpingography (HSG), and hysteroscopy (HSC). The goal of this review is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of TVS, HSG, and HSC for diagnosing abnormalities in infertility patients to determine if all studies are necessary for pre-treatment evaluation.
Results: We identified infertility patients prior to initiation of assisted reproductive technology who had baseline TVS, HSG, and HSC within 180 days of each other. From medical record review, we compared frequencies of each finding between modalities. Of the 1274 patients who received a baseline TVS over 2 years, 327 had TVS and HSG within 180 days and 55 patients had TVS, HSG and HSC. Of the 327, TVS detected fibroids more often than HSG (74 vs. 5, p < .0001), and adenomyosis more often than HSG (7 vs. 2, p = .02). HSG detected tubal obstruction more often than TVS (56 vs. 8, p = .002). Four (1.2 %) patients had endometrial polyps on both HSG and TVS. In the 55 patients with HSG, TVS, and HSC, HSC identified endometrial polyps more often than TVS (10 vs. 1, p = .0001) and HSG (10 vs. 2, p = .0007). TVS detected more fibroids than HSC (17 vs. 5, p < .0001). Tubal obstruction was identified more often by HSG than HSC (19 vs. 5, p < .0001).
Conclusions: TVS is superior for evaluation of myometrial pathology. HSG is superior for evaluation of tubal pathologies. Endometrial pathologies are best identified with HSC.