Evaluation Of Hysterosalpingoscintigraphy (HSSG) As A Tool For Tubal Patency Test
Evaluation Of Hysterosalpingoscintigraphy
Keywords:
Hysterosalpingoscintigraphy, Hysterosalpingography, 1 mCi technetium, 99m labelled sulphurAbstract
Aim: To evaluate the role of hysterosalpingoscintigraphy (HSSG) as a tubal patency test and compare it with hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile patients. Objectives: To determine tubal patency with hysterosalpingoscintigraphy and test its accuracy as compared to hysterosalpingography; compare pain scale between hysterosalpingoscintigraphy and hysterosalpingography; determine time taken for the radiopharmaceutical to ascend up the genital tract during hysterosalpingoscintigraphy. Design: Prospective study Place: The study was conducted in the University Hospital setting. Patients and methods: HSSG was performed on 30 patients with 1 mCi technetium 99m labelled sulphur colloid. Sequential static images were obtained at 0, 15 minutes and 30 minutes. The results were compared to findings of hysterosalpingography. Results: Out of the 30 cases evaluated, 50% had bilateral patent tubes, 33.33% had unilateral patent tube, and 16.67% had bilateral blocked tubes. Time taken for sulphur colloid to reach uterus was 3 minutes 45 seconds; tubes 10 minutes 32 seconds; ovaries 25 minutes 48 seconds. All patients marked 0 on pain scale after HSSG while after HSG, 16 patients marked 3 and 14 patients marked 4 on pain scale. The sensitivity of HSSG was calculated to be 69.64%, specificity 75%, positive predictive value 97.5% and negative predictive value 15%.
Conclusion: HSSG is easy to perform, with no premedication requirement and no pain in procedure with high positive predictive value (97.5%), but a poor negative predictive value (15%). This test can be used as compliment to other tubal patency test in the work up of infertility.
References
2. Akhtar K, Sabih DE, Laghari NA, Mateen A, Sabih Z, Haq AU, Anees M, Alam I, Kausar F . Role of Hysterosalpingoscintigraphy (HSSG) in the work up of infertility. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak Dec 2006;16(12):760-3.
3. Itruralde M and Venter PF. Hystersalpingo-radionuclide scintigraphy (HERS). SeminNuclMed 1981; 11(4): 301-14.
4. Fanchin R, Righini C, Olivennes F, Taylor S, de Ziegler D, Frydman R. Uterine contractions at the time of embryo transfer alter pregnancy rates after in- vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1998; 13(7):1968-74.
5. Helmut W Ott, Kristin Schmiedehausen, Sonja Kat, Helge Binder, Christian Gall, TorstenKuwert, Dirk Heute, Irene Virgolini, Ludwig Wildt. Tubal transport of spermatozoa does not appear to be dependent on normalcilia function. FertilSteril Nov 2007; 88 (5): 1437.e17-e19.
6. Daniel EE, Lucien P, Possey VA, Paton DM. A functional analysis of the myogenic control systems of the human Fallopian tube. Am J ObstetGynecol 1975; 121(8):1046-53.
7. Flickinger GL, Elsner C, Illingworth DV, Muechler EK, Mikhail G. Estrogen and Progesterone receptors in the female genital tract of humans. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1977; 286: 161-179.
8. Kuntz G, Beil D, Dieninger H, Wildt L, Leyendecker G. The dynamics of rapid sperm transport through the female genital tract: evidence from vaginal sonography of uterine peristalsis and hysterosalpingoscintigraphy. Hum Reprod 1996; 11: 627-632.
9. Jan Brundin, M Dahlborn, Eva Ahlberg- Ahre, H J Lundberg. Radionuclide hysterosalpingography for measurement of human oviductal function. Int J GynecolObstet 1989;28:53-59.
10. Kemal Ozger, AkinYildiz, Mine Tuner, MetinErkilic, Bilal Trak, OrhanErman. Radionuclide hysterosalpingography with radiolabeled spermatozoa. FertilStertil April 1997; Vol 67 (4): 751-755.
11. Allan Jacobson, J Michael Uszler. A Simplified Technique for Radionuclide Hysterosalpingography. J Assist Reprod Genet 1993; 10(1): 4-10.
