Hysterosalpingogram findings among subfertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology
Authors Al-Jaroudi D, Aldughayyim AA, Alshamry WS, Alrashidi AS, Bahnassy AA
Received 5 November 2017
Accepted for publication 26 April 2018
Published 14 August 2018 Volume 2018:10 Pages 431—436
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Justinn Cochran
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Professor Elie Al-Chaer
Dania Al-Jaroudi,1 Abeer Abdullah Aldughayyim,2 Wadha Suliman Alshamry,3 Ahlam Saud Alrashidi,3 Ahmed A Bahnassy4
1Reproductive Endocrine and Infertility Medicine Department, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2AL Maarefa College King Khaled Branch, Ad Diriyah for Science and Technology MCST, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 3Faculty of Medicine, King Khalid Hospital, Hail, Saudi Arabia; 4Faculty of Medicine, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Purpose: The objectives of our study included comparing reproductive histories and causes of infertility between patients with and without a hysterosalpingogram (HSG) investigation, and summarizing the prevalence and extent of tubal abnormalities among patients who underwent HSG. Outcomes following assisted reproductive technology (ART) were compared between HSG and non-HSG groups.
Materials and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted to review the medical records of 200 Saudi women with subfertility. In addition to information on HSG, patient data extracted included age, body mass index (BMI), infertility duration, miscarriage experience, parity, cause of infertility, and history of previous surgery, ectopic pregnancy, endometriosis, tubal surgery, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), in vitro fertilization (IVF), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), pregnancy, and live birth.
Results: One hundred and ninety six (98.0%) patients had either IVF (n=18; 9.0%) or ICSI (n=178; 89.0%) performed; ICSI was performed in 157 (90%) and 21 (81%) patients. Of the 12 women with tubal factor who did not undergo HSG, 3 (25.0%) became pregnant after ART, 8 (66.7%) did not, and the status of 1 (8.3%) is yet unknown.
Conclusions: Our study aimed to contribute to resolving the debate regarding the continuing role of HSG in an environment where ART has become established as a successful approach to treat infertility. Most of the HSGs were done as per the attending physician’s discretion, and not according to any specific policy.
Keywords: assisted reproductive technology, hysterosalpingogram, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, infertility, in vitro fertilization
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]