Buenrostro-Aldana M, Kimura-Fujikami K

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 327-335
PDF size: 1402.00 Kb.

ABSTRACT

According to the World Health Organization, infertility and recurrent loss of gestation have an incidence of 15 to 20%. Despite the development of new image technique such as ultrasound, magnetic resonance, sonohysterography, and hysteroscopy, hysterosalpingography remains a highly useful radiological examination to evaluate problems of fertility. Since its emergence in 1928 it has been and is the test of choice for anatomical and pathological study of the uterine cavity and fallopian tubes. This review seeks to offer the necessary tools to properly perform the study and interpret its results in patients with problems of infertility.
Material and methods: We conducted a review of hysterosalpingography studies performed on patients with infertility, in the period from March 2014 through March 2015, at C.T. Scanner de Mexico.
Discussion: Hysterosalpingography is an imaging method that is easy to perform and readily accessible for detection and characterization of tubal and uterine disorders.
Conclusion: Despite the introduction of modern imaging techniques, hysterosalpingography remains the preferred initial study in reproductive disorders and is the ideal method to evaluate possible tubal disorders.

REFERENCES

1. Velázquez G, Zamora ML, Castro JL y cols. Efectividad diagnóstica de la histerosalpingografía y la histerosonografía en la evaluación de la cavidad uterina en pacientes con problemas reproductivos. Revista Mexicana de Medicina de la Reproducción 2010;3(2):78-82.

2. Jaúregui RA, Fuentes JA. Estado actual de la clasificación, diagnóstico y tratamiento de las malformaciones müllerianas. Ginecología y Obstetricia Mexicana 2013;81:34-46.

3. Roma AD, Úbeda B, Úbeda A y cols. Diagnostic value of Hysterosalpingography in the detection of intrauterine abnormalities a comparison with Hysteroscopy. AJR 2004;183:1405-1409.

4. Roma A, Úbeda B, Garaizabal PN. Histerosalpingografía: ¿cómo, cuando y para qué?. Departamento de Diagnostico por la imagen, España 2007;49(1):5-18.

5. Blanco SR, Monte RS, Usandizaga M y cols. Esterilidad e infertilidad femenina (ed): Diagnóstico Clínico y Radiológico, ed 2. Barcelona: JIMS 1980, vol. 1, pp. 1-197.

6. Steinkeler FA, Woodfied CA, Lazarus E y cols. Female infertility: A systematic approach to radiologic imaging and diagnosis. RSNA, RadioGraphics 2009;29:1353-1369.

7. Behr SC, Courtier FL, Qayyum A y cols. Imaging of Müllerian duct anomalies. RSNA, RadioGraphics 2012;32:E233-E249.

8. Simpson WL, Beitia LG, Mester F. Hysterosalpingography: A reemerging study. RSNA, RadioGraphics 2006;26(2):419-431.

9. Ahmad F, Torbatil L, Athbari F y cols. Appearance of uterine scar due to previous cesarean section on Hysterosalpingography: Various shapes, locations and sizes. IJR 2013;10(2):1-8.

10. Mohd H, Jayapragasam KJ, Abdullah BJ. Diagnostic image quality of hysterosalpingography: ionic versus non ionic wáter solubre contrast media. Biomedical imaging and intervention Journal 2009;5(3):1-9.

11. Bigongrari LR, Plait LF, Daly BD y cols. Practice parameter for the performance of Hysterosalpingography. ACR 2014;39:1-7.