Hysterosalpingocontrast sonography (HyCoSy): evaluation of the pain perception, side effects and complications

BMC Medical Imaging

Rocco Rago²  Giuseppe Lo Monte¹  Luisa Caponecchia²  Annalisa Sebastianelli²  Pietro Salacone²  Nicolina Pacini²  Aurelio Aniceto Marcucci²  Immacolata Marcucci²  Roberto Marci¹ 

[1] Department of Morphology, Surgery and Experimental medicine, University of Ferrara, Via Aldo Moro 8, Ferrara, Cona, 44124, Italy;Department of Andrology and Pathophysiology of Reproduction, S. Maria Goretti Hospital, Latina, Italy

关键词: Transvaginal sonography;    Pain perception;    HyCoSy;    Female infertility;    Tubal patency;   

Others  :  1090668
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2342-13-28

 received in 2012-12-10, accepted in 2013-08-05,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Tubal and uterine cavity diseases commonly compromise female fertility. At the present time, hysteroscopy, laparoscopy with chromopertubation and RX-Hysterosalpingography (RX-HSG) are widely accepted screening procedures enabling the effective assessment of both tubal patency and uterine cavity. Nevertheless, consistent evidence supports the reliability of Hysterosalpingocontrast sonography (HyCoSy) in uterine cavity and tubal patency investigation, as a part of the standard infertility work-up. This prospective study was aimed at evaluating the tolerability of the technique as well as the incidence of related side effects and complications in a large series of infertile patients.

Methods

Pain perception of 632 infertile women was measured by means of an 11-point numeric rating scale. Side effects and late complications were also recorded.

Results

The mean numeric rating scale was 2.15 ± 2.0 SD. Most of the patients (374/632, 59.17%) rated HyCoSy as a non-painful procedure, whereas 24.36% (154/632) women reported mild pelvic pain and 9.96% (63/632) classified the discomfort as “moderate”. Only 6.48% (41/632) of the patient population experienced severe pelvic pain. Fifteen (2.37%) patients required drug administration for pain relief. Twenty-six patients (4.11%) showed mild vaso-vagal reactions that resolved without atropine administration. No severe vaso-vagal reactions or late complications were observed.

Conclusions

HyCoSy is a well-tolerated examination and the associated vagal effects are unusual and generally mild. Consequently, we support its introduction as a first-line procedure for tubal patency and uterine cavity investigation in infertile women.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Marci et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Das S, Nardo LG, Seif MW: Proximal tubal disease: the place for tubal cannulation. Reprod Biomed Online 2007, 15:383-388.
• [2]Spira A: Epidemiology of human reproduction. Hum Reprod 1986, 1:111-115.
• [3]ESHRE Capri Workshop Group: Diagnosis and management of the infertile couple: missing information. Hum Reprod Update 2004, 10:295-307.
• [4]Mencaglia L, Colafranceschi M, Gordon AG, Lindemann H, Van Herendael B, Perino A, De Placido G, Colacurci A, Van der Pas H, Tantini C, et al.: Is hysteroscopy of value in the investigation of female infertility? Acta Eur Fertil 1988, 19:239-241.
• [5]Mollo A, De Franciscis P, Colacurci N, Cobellis L, Perino A, Venlezia R, Alviggi C, De Placido G: Hysteroscopic resection of the septum improves the pregnancy rate of women with unexplained infertility: a prospective controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2009, 91:2628-2631.
• [6]Saunders RD, Shwayder JM, Nakajima ST: Current methods of tubal patency assessment. Fertil Steril 2011, 95:2171-2179.
• [7]Jansen FW, Kapiteyn K, Trimbos-Kemper T, Hermans J, Trimbos JB: Complications of laparoscopy: a prospective, multicentre, observationational study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997, 104:595-600.
• [8]Ayada G, Kennedy S, Barlow D, Chamberlain P: A comparison of patient tolerance of hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) with Echovist ®-200 and X-ray hysterosalpingography for outpatient investigation of infertile women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996, 7:201-204.
• [9]Luciano DE, Exacoustos C, Johns DA, Luciano AA: Can hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography replace hysterosalpingography in confirming tubal blockage after hysteroscopic sterilization and in the evaluation of the uterus and tubes in infertile patients? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011, 204(79):e1-e5.
• [10]Graziano A, Lo Monte G, Soave I, Caserta D, Moscarini M, Marci R: Sonohysterosalpingography: a suitable choice in infertility workup. J Med Ultrasonics 2013, 40:225-229.
• [11]Lim CP, Hasafa Z, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A: Should a hysterosalpingogram be a first-line investigation to diagnose female tubal subfertility in the modern subfertility workup? Hum Reprod 2011, 26:967-971.
• [12]Tanawattanacharoen S, Suwajanakorn S, Uerpairojkit B, Boonkasemsanti W, Virutamasen P: Transvaginal hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) compared with chromolaparoscopy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2000, 26:71-75.
• [13]Stacey C, Bown C, Manhire A, Rose D: HyCoSy–as good as claimed? Br J Radiol 2000, 73:133-136.
• [14]Hamilton JA, Larson AJ, Lower AM, Hasnain S, Grudzinskas JG: Evaluation of the performance of hysterosalpingo contrast sonography in 500 consecutive, unselected, infertile women. Hum Reprod 1998, 13:1519-1526.
• [15]Volpi E, Zuccaro G, Patriarca A, Rustichelli S, Sismondi P: Transvaginal sonographic tubal patency testing using air and saline solution as contrast mesia in a routine infertility clinic setting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996, 7:43-48.
• [16]Alborzi S, Dehbashi S, Khodaee R: Sonohysterosalpingographic screening for infertile patients. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003, 82:57-62.
• [17]Radic V, Canic T, Valetic J, Duic Z: Advantages and disadvantages of hysterosonosalpingography in the assessment of the reproductive status of the uterine cavity and fallopian tubes. Eur J Radiol 2005, 53:268-273.
• [18]Exacoustos C, Zupi E, Carusotti C, Lanzi G, Marconi D, Arduini D: Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography compared with hysterosalpingography and laparoscopic dye perturbation to evaluate tubal patency. J Am assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2003, 10:367-372.
• [19]Van den Bosch T, Verguts J, Daemen A, Gevaert O, Domali E, Claerhout F, Vandenbroucke V, De Moor B, Deprest J, Timmerman D: Pain experienced during transvaginal ultrasound, saline contrast sonohysterography, hysteroscopy and office sampling: a comparative study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008, 31:346-351.
• [20]Savelli L, Pollastri P, Guerrini M, Villa G, Manuzzi L, Mabrouk M, Rossi S, Serracchioli R: Tolerability, side effects, and complications of Hysterosalpingocontrast sonography (HyCoSy). Fertil Steril 2009, 92:1481-1486.
• [21]Socolov D, Boian I, Boiculese L, Tamba B, Anghelache-Lupascu I, Socolov R: Comparison of the pain experienced by infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingo contrast sonography or radiographic hysterosalpingography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010, 111:256-259.
• [22]Guney M, Oral B, Bayhan G, Mungan T: Intrauterine lidocaine infusion for pain relief during saline solution infusion sonohysterography: a randomized, controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007, 14:304-310.
• [23]Moro F, Selvaggi L, Sagnella F, Morciano A, Martinez D, Gangale MF, Ciardulli A, Palla C, Uras ML, De Feo E, Boccia S, Tropea A, Lanzone A, Apa R: Could antispasmodic drug reduce pain during hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) in infertile patients? A randomized double-blind clinical trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012, 39:260-265.
• [24]Giugliano E, Cagnazzo E, Bazzan E, Patella A, Marci R: HyCoSy: is possible to quantify the therapeutic effect of a diagnostic test? Clin Exp Reprod Med 2012, 39:161-165.
• [25]Lindborg L, Thorburn J, Bergh C, Strandell A: Influence of HyCoSy on spontaneous pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2009, 24:1075-1079.