Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC · 2018
Hysterosalpingosonography Is Not as Effective as Hysterosalpingography to Increase Chances of Pregnancy.
Сравнительное 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.
Maheux-Lacroix Sarah, Bergeron Catherine, Moore Lynne, Bergeron Marie-Ève, Lefebvre Jessica, Grenier-Ouellette Iseult, Dodin Sylvie
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to examine whether hysterosalpingosonography (sono-HSG) is as effective as hysterosalpingography (HSG) in facilitating conception by comparing pregnancy rates in the 6 months following the procedures.
METHODS: This retrospective noninferiority study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2) was conducted at a tertiary university centre. The investigators studied 440 consecutive eligible infertile women. Bilateral tubal occlusion, severe male infertility, and having undergone both procedures were exclusion criteria. Tubal testing, as part of the infertility workup, was performed by either sono-HSG or HSG. The primary outcome was pregnancy, defined as a positive fetal heartbeat on ultrasonographic examination, in the 6 months following the procedure.
RESULTS: A total of 57 pregnancies (26%) were observed in the HSG group and 33 (15%) in the sono-HSG group. Adjusted and non-adjusted relative risks of pregnancy in the 6 months following sono-HSG compared with HSG were 0.61 (95% CI 0.42-0.89) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.39-0.85). Adverse events were infrequent with both procedures (sono-HSG, 1%; HSG, 4%; P = 0.16).
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that uterine flushing as performed during sono-HSG is not as effective as when performed during HSG to increase the chances of pregnancy, but further studies will be required because of bias related to the retrospective study design.
METHODS: This retrospective noninferiority study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2) was conducted at a tertiary university centre. The investigators studied 440 consecutive eligible infertile women. Bilateral tubal occlusion, severe male infertility, and having undergone both procedures were exclusion criteria. Tubal testing, as part of the infertility workup, was performed by either sono-HSG or HSG. The primary outcome was pregnancy, defined as a positive fetal heartbeat on ultrasonographic examination, in the 6 months following the procedure.
RESULTS: A total of 57 pregnancies (26%) were observed in the HSG group and 33 (15%) in the sono-HSG group. Adjusted and non-adjusted relative risks of pregnancy in the 6 months following sono-HSG compared with HSG were 0.61 (95% CI 0.42-0.89) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.39-0.85). Adverse events were infrequent with both procedures (sono-HSG, 1%; HSG, 4%; P = 0.16).
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that uterine flushing as performed during sono-HSG is not as effective as when performed during HSG to increase the chances of pregnancy, but further studies will be required because of bias related to the retrospective study design.