Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2010
Gel instillation sonohysterography (GIS) and saline contrast sonohysterography (SCSH): comparison of two diagnostic techniques.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bij de Vaate A J M, Brölmann H A M, van der Slikke J W, Emanuel M H, Huirne J A F
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare gel instillation sonohysterography (GIS) with saline contrast sonohysterography (SCSH) as diagnostic methods for the evaluation of the uterine cavity.
METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, between September 2007 and April 2008. We included 65 women suspected of having an intrauterine abnormality with an indication for SCSH/GIS. First SCSH and subsequently GIS were performed in all women. Distension of the uterine cavity, image quality, visualization of intrauterine abnormalities and pain experienced on a visual analog scale (VAS score) were recorded for both procedures.
RESULTS: The mean distension with GIS was 9.0 mm and with SCSH it was 8.5 mm (P = 0.15). The mean image quality, on a scale from 0 to 5, for SCSH was 4.0 and for GIS it was 3.6 (P = 0.01). No difference was found for the visualization of intrauterine abnormalities, and the VAS scores for pain experienced on SCSH and GIS were 1.5 and 1.6, respectively (P = 0.62).
CONCLUSIONS: The image quality of SCSH is slightly better than that of GIS. This difference is likely to be attributable to the presence of air bubbles in the gel. The small difference in uterine cavity distension in favor of GIS and comparable stable distension during at least 4 min make GIS a suitable alternative for SCSH if air bubbles can be prevented.
METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, between September 2007 and April 2008. We included 65 women suspected of having an intrauterine abnormality with an indication for SCSH/GIS. First SCSH and subsequently GIS were performed in all women. Distension of the uterine cavity, image quality, visualization of intrauterine abnormalities and pain experienced on a visual analog scale (VAS score) were recorded for both procedures.
RESULTS: The mean distension with GIS was 9.0 mm and with SCSH it was 8.5 mm (P = 0.15). The mean image quality, on a scale from 0 to 5, for SCSH was 4.0 and for GIS it was 3.6 (P = 0.01). No difference was found for the visualization of intrauterine abnormalities, and the VAS scores for pain experienced on SCSH and GIS were 1.5 and 1.6, respectively (P = 0.62).
CONCLUSIONS: The image quality of SCSH is slightly better than that of GIS. This difference is likely to be attributable to the presence of air bubbles in the gel. The small difference in uterine cavity distension in favor of GIS and comparable stable distension during at least 4 min make GIS a suitable alternative for SCSH if air bubbles can be prevented.