|
| Subject/Reference | Type of study | Study design | Main results |
|
| accuracy | | | |
|
| [15] Emanuel et al. 2012 | Observational | First observational study (n=73) | Successful procedure 92% |
|
| [16] Van Schoubroeck et al. 2013 | Observational | HyFoSy versus Laparoscopy (n=20) | Agreement 100% |
|
| [17] Lim et al. 2015 | RCT | HyFoSy versus saline HyCoSy (n=40) | HyFoSy performed better |
|
| [18] Piccioni et al. 2017 | RCT | LSC controlled trial HyFoSy versus HyCoSy (n=37) | HyFoSy 94,4% versus HyCoSy 57,8% |
|
| [19] Ludwin et al. 2017 | Observational | LSC controlled trial HyFoSy versus HyFoSy Doppler and saline HyCoSy (n=132) | HyFoSy (92,1%) and HyFoSy Doppler (95,8%) performed better than saline HyCoSy (84,2%) |
|
| 3D US and Doppler flow techn. | | | |
|
| [21] Soliman et al. 2015 | Observational | LSC versus saline HyCoSy Power Doppler flow mapping | Power Doppler saline HyCoSy can be incorporated in routine fertility workup |
|
| [22] Exacoustos et al. 2017 | Observational | 2D HyFoSy compared to automated 3D CCI HyFoSy (n=132) | 3D CCI HyFoSy is accurate and safe |
|
| [23] Riganelli et al. 2018 | RCT | LSC controlled 2D HyFoSy versus 3D HyFoSy (n=50) | 3D HyFoSy performed better (88% versus 81%) |
|
| [24] Ludwin et al. 2017 | Observational | Retrospective 2D Doppler HyFoSy versus 2D HyCoSy | 2D Doppler HyFoSy performed better |
|
| [26] Lavaillant et al. 2019 | Observational | Fertiliscan© including 3D HyFoSy | Anatomy of uterus, ovaries and tubes |
|
| Discomfort and pain | | | |
|
| [27] Savelli et al. 2009 | Observational | HyCoSy with paediatric balloon catheter (n=483) | Pain: no (30,0%), mild (49,7%) and severe (6,8%) |
|
| [28] Tur-Kaspa 2012 | Opinion | Expert opinion and review | Education in gentle technique |
| [29] Dreyer et al 2014 | RCT | VAS score HyFoSy versus HSG (n=40) | Lower VAS score for HyFoSy (1.7 vs 3.7; p<0.01) |
|
| [30] Van Schoubroeck et al. 2015 | Cross sectional | VAS score TVU and TVU + subsequent HyFoSy (n=216) | Lower VAS score for TVU (1.5 vs 3.6) |
|
| [31] Van Schoubroeck et al. 2015 | Randomized trial | VAS score HyFoSy with paediatric Foley’s catheter versus uVue catheter (n=40) | Foley’s catheter easier to insert
uVue catheter less painful |
|
| [32] Ludwin et al. 2017 | Observational | HyFoSy with and without analgesics (n=300) | VAS score higher without analgesics (3.0 vs 2.0; p=0.002) |
|
| catheter | | | |
|
| [33] Yung et al 2016 | RTC | Without balloon versus with balloon (n=120) | Without balloon less pain |
|
| [34] Dessole et al 2001 | Observational | Comparison of 6 different catheters (n=568) | No difference observed |
|
| temperature | | | |
|
| [35] Fenzl 2012 | Observational | Saline and Echovist temp 250 versus 370 (n=138) | Less pain in case of body temperature |
|
| [36] Opolskiene et al. 2015 | Observational | Saline (SIS) in premenopausal versus postmenopausal women (n=99) | Postmenopausal more pain (71% vs 32%; p<0.002) |
|
| [37] Zhu et al. 2012 | Observational | HSG room versus body temperature contrast (n=200) | Less pain with warm contrast |
|
| analgesics | | | |
|
| [38] Frishman et al. 2004 | RCT | lidocaine or saline before HSG (n=127) | No differences in pain score |
|
| [39] Guney et al 2007 | RCT | Local lidocaine before SIS (n=106) | Only beneficial in parous women |
|
| [40] Van den Bosch et al. 2011 | Observational | Local lidocaine before Hysteroscopy (n=132) | No difference |
|
| [33] Yung et al. 2016 | RCT | SIS with and without lidocaine (n=120) | No difference |
|
| [41] Hindocha et al. 2015 | Systematic review | Pain relief in HSG | Local analgesics may be effective |
|
| [42] Ahmad et al. 2007 | Systematic review | Any analgesia in HSG | No benefit |
|
| [43] Ahmad et al. 2011 | Systematic review | Any analgesia in HyCoSy | No benefit |
|
| [44] Moro et al 2012 | RTC | Antispasmodic drug in HyCoSy (n=816) | No difference in pain scores |
|
| [45] Teran-Alonso et al. 2014 | Observational | Paracetamol and ibuprofen prior to hysteroscopy | No reduction of pain scores |
|
| [46] Karaman et al. 2016 | RTC | Rectal indomethacin prior to HSG | Effective in pain reduction |
|
| Intravasation | | | |
|
| [47] Onwuchekwa and Oriji 2017 | Observational | HSG with WSCM (n=299) | Intravasation in 6.4% |
|
| [48] Wang et al. 2018 | Observational | Intravasation in HyCoSy with SonoVue (n=276) | Intravasation in 13.04% |
|
| [49] Ludwin et al. 2018 | Case report | First report on intravasation with HyFoSy | |
|
| PID prevention | | | |
|
| [51] Dessole et al. 2003 | Observational | Sonohysterosalpingography (n=1.153) | Fever and peritonitis in 0.95% |
|
| [52] Pittaway et al. 1983 | Observational | PID after HSG in tubal occlusion 4/35 (11%) without and 0/56 (0%) with antibiotics | Antibiotics only in case of tubal occlusion |
|
| [53] Simms et al. 2006 | Case control study | Risk factors associated with PID in 140 cases compared to 105 controls | Age <25, early first sex experience, low socio-economic status and chlamydia exposure |
|
| [54] Kasius et al. 2011 | RCT | AB prophylaxis for hysteroscopy (n=266 AB vs 365 contr) | PID in AB 0.4% versus contr 0% |
|
| [55] Gregoriou et al. 2012 | RCT | AB prophylaxis for hysteroscopy (n=364 AB vs 188 contr) | PID in AB 0.57% versus contr 0.53% |
|
| [56] Nappi et al. 2013 | RCT | AB prophylaxis for hysteroscopy (n=523 AB vs 523 contr) | PID in AB 1.0% versus contr 1.15%; p>0.05 |
|
| [57] Thinkamrop et al. 2013 | Cochrane Syst Rev | AB prophylaxis for transcervical intrauterine procedures | No conclusion possible |
|
| [58] Pareira et al. 2016 | Systematic review | AB prophylaxis for Gynaecologic procedures. | Not as routine, only in high risk cases |
|
| Enhancing chance of pregnancy | | | |
|
| [59] Van Schoubroeck et al. 2015 | Observational | Retrospective study 3-42 months after HyFoSy (n=359) | Pregnancy rate 55% |
|
| [14] Tanaka et al. 2018 | Observational | Retrospective cohort study 6 months after HyFoSy (n=111) | Pregnancy rate 43% |
|
| [15] Emanuel et al. 2012 | Observational | Retrospective study 3 months after HyFoSy (n=73) | Pregnancy rate 19.2% |
|
| [60] Exacoustos et al. 2015 | Observational | Retrospective study 1, 6 and 12 months after HyFoSy (n=157) | Pregnancy rates 10.2%, 29.6% and 34.4% |
|
| [61] Watson et al. 1994 | Meta analysis | 4 RTCs and 6 others on HSG with OSCM versus WSCM | Therapeutic effect of OSCM |
|
| [62] Johnson et al. 2005 | Cochrane Syst Rev | Systematic Review OSCM and OCSM versus WSCM | Therapeutic effect of OSCM |
|
| [63] Johnson 2014 | Narrative review | OSCM treatment of infertility | Therapeutic effect in endometriosis |
|
| [64] Mohiyiddeen et al. 2015 | Cochrane Syst Rev | The effect of tubal flushing on life birth and pregnancy rates | Higher life birth rate for OSCM versus WSCM (OR 3.09 versus 1.38) |
|
| [65] Dreyer et al. 2017 | Multicentre RCT | Pregnancy 6 months after OSCM versus WSCM (n=1119) | Higher pregnancy rate after OSCM (39% vs 29%) |
|
| [70] Lindborg et al. 2009 | RCT | HyCoSy with WSCM (n=334) | No enhanced pregnancy rate |
|
| [71] Giugliano et al 2012 | Observational | Saline HyCoSy (n=180) | 45% pregnancy rate in the first 30 days |
|
| [73] Ahinko-Hakamaa et al. 2007 | Observational | Pregnancy rates after (mean) 2.3 cycles with IUI. | Pregnancy rates after LSC 30%, HyCoSy 41% and HSG 38%. |
|
| [74] Dreyer et al. 2019 | Post-hoc analysis | Prospective multicentre cohort study (n= 4556) | HSG increased pregnancy rate compared to no HSG regardless of WSCM or OSCM |
|
| [75] Chunyan et al. 2018 | Observational | Pregnancy within 180 days after HyCoSy (n=1008) | Higher pregnancy rates if both tubes are open |
|
| [77] Salehpour et al. 2016 | RCT | Saline infusion prior to IVF (n=20) versus controls (n=39) | Pregnancy 1/20 versus 9/39 (p=0.01) |
|
| [78] Reilly et al. 2019 | RCT | OSCM endometrial bathing prior to IVF (n=33) vs controls (n=37) in women with endometriosis | Pregnancy within 6 months 11/33 (33%) versus 12/37 (32%) |
|
