Journal of Human Reproductive Science
Home Ahead of Print Current Issue Archives
   Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size    Users online: 49


 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE Table of Contents   
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 236-240
Comparison between findings of saline infusion sonohysterography and office hysteroscopy in patients with recurrent implantation failure


Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Ahmed Reda
4 Abbas Elsherif Street, Helmeyat Elzaitoon, Cairo
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0974-1208.197661

Rights and Permissions

Aim: This study aims to determine the accuracy of saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) in the diagnosis of intrauterine pathologies in women with recurrent implantation failure (RIF). Settings and Design: This is a prospective cross-over study which was carried out during the period between December 2013 and July 2014. Materials and Methods: The study involved sixty subfertile women with a history of RIF. All cases underwent a transvaginal ultrasonography, SIS and then an office hysteroscopy (1 day after SIS) during early follicular phase. SIS was carried out by same sonographer, and then hysteroscopy was carried out by same gynecologist who was kept blind to findings at SIS. Statistical Analysis: Was done using IBM© SPSS© Statistics version 22. The sensitivity of SIS was calculated as it equals: True positive by SIS/all positive (true cases by hysteroscopy) and specificity was calculated as it equals: True negative by SIS/all negatives (normal by hysteroscopy). Results: Overall uterine abnormalities were significantly less likely to be identified with SIS compared to hysteroscopy (P = 0.002), but analysis of each finding separately demonstrated a comparable difference between SIS and hysteroscopy (P > 0.05). We found that the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of SIS to detect intrauterine pathology is 41.2%, 100%, 100%, and 81.1%, respectively. Conclusion: Our findings suggest a good role of SIS in the workup for RIF saving more invasive procedure for selected cases.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article  Email this article
    

  Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
   Citation Manager
  Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed528    
    Printed3    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded38    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal