Neuro endocrinology letters · 2007
Comparison of tubal patency assessment during microlaparoscopy and laparoscopy, and its compatibility with previous histerosalpingography results.
Сравнительное исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Marianowski Piotr, Kaminski Pawel, Wielgos Miroslaw, Szymusik Iwona, Ludwikowski Grzegorz
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare tubal patency assessment during microlaparoscopy and laparoscopy and its compatibility with previously performed histerosalpingography (HSG).
MATERIAL & METHODS: Endoscopic evaluation of tubal patency was performed on 135 women, aged 30-39 (microlaparoscopy in 65 cases, laparoscopy in 70). In the group of 42 patients qualified for endoscopy, histerosalpingography was carried out in the past. The duration of tubal patency assessment was counted from the moment of the salpingograph placement, with trocars already introduced into the peritoneal cavity.
RESULTS: The mean duration of tubal patency evaluation during laparoscopy was 5'45"+/-39 and during microlaparoscopy - 7'30"+/-49". The results of the examination were afterwards compared with the results of previously performed HSG. Their sensitivity, specificity, compatibility and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. The sensitivity and specificity of microlaparoscopy in tubal patency assessment were 81% and 100%, respectively; its positive predictive value -100% and negative -96%. As to laparoscopy, the values were established at 90%, 100%, 100% and 98.4%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Tubal patency assessment during microlaparoscopy and laparoscopy is characterized by similar sensitivity and specificity. Although the mean duration of microlaparoscopy is significantly longer, the difference in time is of no practical implication.
MATERIAL & METHODS: Endoscopic evaluation of tubal patency was performed on 135 women, aged 30-39 (microlaparoscopy in 65 cases, laparoscopy in 70). In the group of 42 patients qualified for endoscopy, histerosalpingography was carried out in the past. The duration of tubal patency assessment was counted from the moment of the salpingograph placement, with trocars already introduced into the peritoneal cavity.
RESULTS: The mean duration of tubal patency evaluation during laparoscopy was 5'45"+/-39 and during microlaparoscopy - 7'30"+/-49". The results of the examination were afterwards compared with the results of previously performed HSG. Their sensitivity, specificity, compatibility and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. The sensitivity and specificity of microlaparoscopy in tubal patency assessment were 81% and 100%, respectively; its positive predictive value -100% and negative -96%. As to laparoscopy, the values were established at 90%, 100%, 100% and 98.4%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Tubal patency assessment during microlaparoscopy and laparoscopy is characterized by similar sensitivity and specificity. Although the mean duration of microlaparoscopy is significantly longer, the difference in time is of no practical implication.