PubMedDate not supplied
UNLABELLED: Tubal pathology with tubal blockage due to the pelvic inflammatory diseases is one of the most frequent causes of infertility in a woman [1]. The two most important diagnostic procedures which are used for evaluation of tubal patency are hysterosalpingography and laparoscopic hydrotubation [4]. SUBJECT: The aim of the study was the comparison of hysterosalpingographic and laparoscopic findings and determination of accuracy of these two procedures in the diagnosis of tubal patency. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied and compared the results of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in 102 infertile women who were operated on at the Narodni Front Hospital of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in Belgrade during 1993 and 1994. Of 102 operated women 47 women were with primary infertility and 55 with secondary infertility. The patients were from 20 to 41 years of age, the average 28 +/- 2.4 years. RESULTS: Of one hundred and two operated women tubal blockage was found in 94 (92.1%) patients. Unilateral hydrosalpinx was found by hysterosalpingography in 16 (15.7%) subjects and bilateral hydrosalpinx in 30 (29.4%) women. Unilateral hydrosalpinx was found by laparoscopy in 17 (16.1%) patients and bilateral hydrosalpinx in 32 (31.4%) subjects. The concordant findings by hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in the diagnostics of unilateral hydrosalpinx were found in 76.5% of cases, and in bilateral hydrosalpinx in 70.4%. This difference was not statistically significant. Unilateral tubal blockage was identified by laparoscopy in 26 (25.5%) patients and bilateral in 27 (26.5%) subjects. The concordant findings by hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in unilateral tubal blockage were found in 61.5% of cases, and in bilateral tubal blockage in 70.4% of women. The total concordant findings by hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy in tubal blockage were found in 65.7 of cases, and concordant findings after hysterosalpingography and surgery were noted in 61.7% cases. The findings by laparoscopy and surgery were in harmony in 86.3% patients. Ovarian abnormalities were found by laparoscopy and surgery in 22 (21.6%) women. Pelvic adhesions were found by laparoscopy in 42 women of 49 patients in whom pelvic adhesions were found during the operation. Uterine congenital anomalies were found by laparoscopy in 3 (2.9%), women and by hysterosalpingography in 6 (5.9%) patients. DISCUSSION: Of 102 operated women tubal blockage was found in 94 (92.2%) women. Unilateral tubal blockage was found in 38 (40.4%) patients, and bilateral tubal blockage in 56 (59.6%) subjects. Hysterosalpingographic and laparoscopic hydrotubation findings in the diagnosis of tubal patency were concordant in 65% of cases, hysterosalpingographic and operative findings in 61.7% of patients, and laparoscopic and operative findings in 86.3% of subjects. Although concordant findings of 65.7% were noted in this study, which were similar to findings of other authors, the percentage of 62.5% [4], and 76% was observed [5]. During the operation pelvic adhesions were found in 49 patients, and laparoscopic in 42 women only. Ovarian abnormalities were found by laparoscopy in 22 (21.6%) patients, while uterine fibroid was found in 10 (9.8%) subjects. Uterine congenital anomalies were found by hysterosalpingography in 6 (5.9%) cases and by laparoscopy only in 3 (2.9%) patients. The advantage of visual hysterosalpingography seems to be in identification of some congenital uterine anomalies. However, the advantage of laparoscopy is identified by the possibility of visualisation of some other pelvic abnormalities which may be the cause of infertility. CONCLUSION: There are some hysterosalpingographic and laparoscopic advantages and disadvantages in the diagnosis of infertility in women. Only by using both procedures accurate results can be achieved in the tubes, the uterus and the ovary, that can be a cause of infertility in women.