Ultraschall in der Medizin (Stuttgart, Germany : 1980) · 1997
[Radiologic versus ultrasound fallopian tube imaging. Painfulness of the examination and diagnostic reliability of hysterosalpingography and hysterosalpingo-contrast-ultrasonography with echovist 200].
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Korell M, Seehaus D, Strowitzki T, Hepp H
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: Evaluation of tubal patency is usually assessed with hysterosalpingography (HSG) or laparoscopy including chromopertubation. Sonographical visualisation with Echovist 200 (hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography-HyCoSy) provides a new noninvasive tool. Therefore we conducted a prospective controlled study to compare sonographic and radiological evaluation of the fallopian tube. Main test parameters were accuracy of both methods and patient discomfort.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: 50 patients were enrolled in this study. All patients were examined by both techniques; the sequence was randomly chosen. The results of HSG and HyCoSy were compared. Patient discomfort was assessed with a standardised questionnaire using a visual analog scale (0-10).
RESULTS: Diagnosis of tubal patency identifying proximal or distal blockage was the primary end point using HSG as standard technique. Proximal and distal patency by HSG was sonographically confirmed in 82.9% (63/76) and 82.1% (46/56) tubes respectively. If HSG revealed proximal or distal occlusion, identical results were obtained in 91.7% (22/24) or 60% (12/20) by HyCoSy. No significant differences were found in patient discomfort. However a significant correlation was demonstrated between tubal patency and discomfort. The lowest score was obtained in patients with open tubes (4.6) increased in patients with distal occlusion (6.0) and reached a maximum with proximal pathology (8.7).
CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional HSG, HyCoSy provides a highly efficient evaluation of tubal pathology and can be successfully used as a noninvasive screening method.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: 50 patients were enrolled in this study. All patients were examined by both techniques; the sequence was randomly chosen. The results of HSG and HyCoSy were compared. Patient discomfort was assessed with a standardised questionnaire using a visual analog scale (0-10).
RESULTS: Diagnosis of tubal patency identifying proximal or distal blockage was the primary end point using HSG as standard technique. Proximal and distal patency by HSG was sonographically confirmed in 82.9% (63/76) and 82.1% (46/56) tubes respectively. If HSG revealed proximal or distal occlusion, identical results were obtained in 91.7% (22/24) or 60% (12/20) by HyCoSy. No significant differences were found in patient discomfort. However a significant correlation was demonstrated between tubal patency and discomfort. The lowest score was obtained in patients with open tubes (4.6) increased in patients with distal occlusion (6.0) and reached a maximum with proximal pathology (8.7).
CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional HSG, HyCoSy provides a highly efficient evaluation of tubal pathology and can be successfully used as a noninvasive screening method.