| Literature DB >> 32419884 |
Joseph A Adedigba1, Bukunmi M Idowu2, Sarah P Hermans1, Bolanle O Ibitoye3, Oluwatunmise A Fawole4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to explore the relationships between abnormal hysterosalpingography (HSG) findings and all types of infertility.Entities:
Keywords: hydrosalpinx; hysterosalpingography; infertility; sub-Saharan Africa
Year: 2020 PMID: 32419884 PMCID: PMC7218450 DOI: 10.5114/pjr.2020.94488
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pol J Radiol ISSN: 1733-134X
Infertility status breakdown and corresponding percentages among 450-patient cohort
| Type of infertility | |
|---|---|
| Primary infertility | 79 (17.6) |
| Secondary infertility | 211 (46.9) |
| Subfertility | 9 (2.0) |
| Total | 299 (66.4) |
Frequency of infertility among age groups
| Age category (years) | Presence of infertility, |
|---|---|
| 21-25 | 6 (1.33) |
| 26-30 | 70 (15.6) |
| 31-35 | 102 (22.7) |
| 35-40 | 70 (15.6) |
| 41-45 | 36 (8.0) |
| 46-50 | 11 (2.4) |
Figure 1Hysterosalpingogram AP pelvis spot film showing a persistent, irregular/ragged filling defect centrally within the uterine cavity, which is in keeping with uterine synechiae
Figure 2Hysterosalpingogram AP pelvis spot film showing an enlarged, lobulated, and elongated/thinned-out uterine cavity, which is displaced cephalad. An oval filling defect is seen at the lower uterine segment while a linear filling defect is sighted in its mid-portion (cicatrisation from previous instrumentation and/or infection). Both uterine tubes are not demonstrated. The overall picture is suspicious for multiple uterine and cervical leiomyomata with bilateral tubal blockage
Cornual tubal blockage cross tabulated against fertility status
| Cornual tubal blockage | Fertility status | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary infertility | Secondary infertility | Subfertility | |||
| Left cornual tubal blockage | 3 | 10 | 1 | 14 | |
| ( | (30.00) | (41.70) | (50.00) | (38.90) | |
| Right cornual tubal blockage | 6 | 13 | 1 | 20 | |
| ( | (60.00) | (54.20) | (50.00) | (55.60) | |
| Bilateral cornual tubal blockage | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |
| ( | (10.00) | (4.20) | (0.00) | (5.60) | |
| Total | 10 | 24 | 2 | 36 | |
| (100.00) | (100.00) | (100.00) | (100.00) | ||
Perifimbrial adhesion and blockage versus fertility status crosstabulation
| Perifimbrial adhesion and blockage | Fertility status | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary infertility | Secondary infertility | |||
| Left perifimbrial adhesion | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| ( | (13.3) | (8.7) | (10.5) | |
| Right perifimbrial adhesion | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| ( | (13.3) | (0.0) | (5.2) | |
| Bilateral perifimbrial adhesion | 5 | 10 | 15 | |
| ( | (33.3) | (43.5) | (39.5) | |
| Left perifimbrial blockage | 3 | 3 | 6 | |
| ( | (20.0) | (13.0) | (15.8) | |
| Right perifimbrial blockage | 1 | 5 | 6 | |
| ( | (6.7) | (21.7) | (15.8) | |
| Bilateral perifimbrial blockage | 2 | 3 | 5 | |
| ( | (13.3) | (13.0) | (13.2) | |
| Total | 15 | 23 | 38 | |
| (100.0) | (100.0) | (100.0) | ||
Figure 3Hysterosalpingogram AP pelvis spot film showing rounding-off of both uterine cornua and extravasation into the periuterine veins (appearing like a necklace around the uterine cavity). Both Fallopian tubes were not outlined. This is indicative of bilateral tubal occlusion
Tubal occlusion versus fertility status crosstabulation
| Tubal occlusion | Fertility status | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Secondary infertility | |||
| Left tubal occlusion | 2 | 2 | |
| ( | (66.7) | (66.7) | |
| Right tubal occlusion | 0 | 0 | |
| ( | (0.0) | (0.0) | |
| Bilateral tubal occlusion | 1 | 1 | |
| ( | (33.3) | (33.3) | |
| Total | 3 | 3 | |
| (100.0) | (100.0) | ||
Figure 4A) Hysterosalpingogram AP pelvis spot film showing a normal uterine cavity with bulbously dilated distal portions of the uterine tubes bilaterally, without contrast spillage into the peritoneum. B) The 30-minute delayed film shows contrast retention/loculation with within the dilated distal Fallopian tubes. These findings are conclusive for bilateral hydrosalpinges with bilateral tubal occlusion
Hydrosalpinx versus fertility status crosstabulation
| Hydrosalpinx | Fertility status | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary infertility | Secondary infertility | Subfer- | |||
| Left hydrosalpinx | 1 | 8 | 1 | 10 | |
| ( | (7.10) | (27.60) | (100.00) | (22.70) | |
| Right hydrosalpinx | 6 | 15 | 0 | 21 | |
| ( | (42.90) | (51.70) | (0.00) | (47.70) | |
| Bilateral hydrosalpinx | 7 | 6 | 0 | 13 | |
| ( | (50.00) | (20.70) | (0.00) | (29.50) | |
| Total | 14 | 29 | 1 | 44 | |
| (100.00) | (100.00) | (100.00) | (100.00) | ||
Multivariate logistic regression for explanatory variables and presence of infertility, odds ratio and 95% CI
| Parameter | Odds ratio | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cornual tubal occlusion | 1.29 | 0.66-2.54 | 0.459 |
| Hydrosalpinx | 2.12 | 1.02-4.36 | 0.042 |
| Tubal occlusion | 0.295 | 0.069-1.26 | 0.1 |
| Perifimbrial occlusion/tubal blockage | 0.891 | 0.48-1.65 | 0.714 |
| Age | 1.02 | 0.98-1.06 | 0.311 |