Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology · 1998
Agreement between hysterosalpingography and laparoscopic chromopertubation in assessment of tubal patency.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Matorras R, Rodriguez F, Pêrez C, Pijoan J I, Echanojauregui A, Rodriguez-Escudero F J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To assess the agreement between tubal patency assessed by laparoscopy with chromopertubation and by hysterosalpingography using contrast media.
SETTING: University Medical School.
PATIENTS: 314 consecutive women subjected to laparoscopy and hysterosalpingography for an infertility study.
DESIGN: Prospective study.
METHODS: Chromopertubation using Methylen blue dye, performed on days 20-24. Hysterosalpingography performed on days 7-10 with water soluble contrast.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Kappa coefficient calculation.
RESULTS: Kappa coefficient ranged from 0.40 to 0.36, depending on the categories analyzed, corresponding to a fair agreement.
CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of tubal factor requires that both tubal patency tests (Hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy) show an abnormal patency. When one of the aforementioned tests is normal, performing the second one has little clinical advantage. However, it is suggested that when there is a discordant patency the pregnancy rates could be somewhat reduced.
SETTING: University Medical School.
PATIENTS: 314 consecutive women subjected to laparoscopy and hysterosalpingography for an infertility study.
DESIGN: Prospective study.
METHODS: Chromopertubation using Methylen blue dye, performed on days 20-24. Hysterosalpingography performed on days 7-10 with water soluble contrast.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Kappa coefficient calculation.
RESULTS: Kappa coefficient ranged from 0.40 to 0.36, depending on the categories analyzed, corresponding to a fair agreement.
CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of tubal factor requires that both tubal patency tests (Hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy) show an abnormal patency. When one of the aforementioned tests is normal, performing the second one has little clinical advantage. However, it is suggested that when there is a discordant patency the pregnancy rates could be somewhat reduced.