Ultrasound quarterly · 2020
Saline-Air Hysterosalpingo-Contrast Sonography Is Equivalent to the Modified Hysterosalpingogram Following Hysteroscopic Sterilization.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Luong Emerly, Ludwin Artur, Winter Thomas, Yaklic Jerome, Maxwell Rose A, Bhagavath Bala, Lindheim Steven R
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To estimate the diagnostic efficacy of saline-air hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (SA-HyCoSy) compared with the modified hysterosalpingogram (mHSG) for confirmation of both coil location and tubal occlusion following hysteroscopic sterilization.
METHODS: This study included 19 women who underwent both SA-HyCoSy and mHSG where 1 test was followed by the other. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for tubal occlusion against the mHSG were calculated for each fallopian tube by 2 independent interpreters. Interrater reliability was assessed using Cohen κ statistic. Procedure time and pain level by 11-point numeric rating scale of SA-HyCoSy and mHSG were also compared.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight fallopian tubes were evaluated. Tubal occlusion was noted in 97.3% of tubes for both interpreters with the mHSG compared with 92.1% and 94.7% with SA-HyCoSy. The positive and negative predictive values for tubal occlusion were 100%/100% and 50%/33%, respectively, with an overall agreement of 97.4% and 95.7%, κ = 0.48, P < 0.01. Saline-air HyCoSy changed interpretation of coil insert location in 50% and 44.7% for each interpreter, being downgraded from optimal to satisfactory in 42.9% (9/21) and 36% (9/25) and upgraded to optimal in 58.8% (10/17) and 61.5% (8/13), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in procedural time (7.5 vs 9.4 minutes, P > 0.05) or maximum pain scores (2.3 vs 3.1, P > 0.05) for the mHSG compared with SA-HyCoSy.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings revealed a high degree of diagnostic accuracy with SA-HyCoSy for tubal occlusion, although coil location changed in nearly half of cases. Avoidance of radiation and patient convenience/compliance with SA-HyCoSy may outweigh the drawbacks.
METHODS: This study included 19 women who underwent both SA-HyCoSy and mHSG where 1 test was followed by the other. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for tubal occlusion against the mHSG were calculated for each fallopian tube by 2 independent interpreters. Interrater reliability was assessed using Cohen κ statistic. Procedure time and pain level by 11-point numeric rating scale of SA-HyCoSy and mHSG were also compared.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight fallopian tubes were evaluated. Tubal occlusion was noted in 97.3% of tubes for both interpreters with the mHSG compared with 92.1% and 94.7% with SA-HyCoSy. The positive and negative predictive values for tubal occlusion were 100%/100% and 50%/33%, respectively, with an overall agreement of 97.4% and 95.7%, κ = 0.48, P < 0.01. Saline-air HyCoSy changed interpretation of coil insert location in 50% and 44.7% for each interpreter, being downgraded from optimal to satisfactory in 42.9% (9/21) and 36% (9/25) and upgraded to optimal in 58.8% (10/17) and 61.5% (8/13), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in procedural time (7.5 vs 9.4 minutes, P > 0.05) or maximum pain scores (2.3 vs 3.1, P > 0.05) for the mHSG compared with SA-HyCoSy.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings revealed a high degree of diagnostic accuracy with SA-HyCoSy for tubal occlusion, although coil location changed in nearly half of cases. Avoidance of radiation and patient convenience/compliance with SA-HyCoSy may outweigh the drawbacks.