Gel-instillation versus saline infusion during sonohysterography: Any advantages?

Objective: To evaluate if gel-instillation sonography (GIS) is superior to saline infusion, during sonohysterography performed in patients to investigate the endometrial cavity. Design: A prospective observational study. Setting: The Outpatient Clinic, the Ultrasonography Department and the Office H...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yahia El-Faissal, Ahmed El lithy
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SpringerOpen 2015-03-01
Series:Middle East Fertility Society Journal
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110569014000399
id doaj-ad98dd093b0d49c485c58b55334aeced
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ad98dd093b0d49c485c58b55334aeced2020-11-25T00:03:07ZengSpringerOpenMiddle East Fertility Society Journal1110-56902015-03-0120161010.1016/j.mefs.2014.05.001Gel-instillation versus saline infusion during sonohysterography: Any advantages?Yahia El-FaissalAhmed El lithyObjective: To evaluate if gel-instillation sonography (GIS) is superior to saline infusion, during sonohysterography performed in patients to investigate the endometrial cavity. Design: A prospective observational study. Setting: The Outpatient Clinic, the Ultrasonography Department and the Office Hysteroscopy Clinic of Cairo University Medical School Hospital, Kasr El Eini. Patients: We included 100 women aged 20–45 years, presenting to the outpatient clinic of our University Hospital. Interventions: Two groups of patients were included, in the first (53 patients) saline infusion sonography (SIS) was performed, in the second (47 patients), we did GIS. The patients then underwent office diagnostic hysteroscopy (DH). Main outcome measures: The procedure time, uterine distension time, pain scoring, the sensitivity and the specificity of each test. Results: Mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the saline group than in the gel group (10.23 ± 1.69 and 14.45 ± 1.62 min, respectively, P-value = 0.0001). The uterine distention time was significantly longer in the second group (21.94 s ± 2.28), while in the first it was 7.96 ± 2.37 (P-value = 0.0001). The pain score was higher in the second group (mean = 1.45 ± 0.72) compared to 1.13 ± 0.68 in the first (P-value of 0.007). The specificity of testing with saline was 100% and the sensitivity was 64.28%, whereas in the gel group they were 97.22% and 81.81%, respectively. Conclusions: Using GIS increased the procedure time, uterine distension time and patients’ discomfort without effect on diagnostic accuracy. Both tests are highly specific, but the sensitivity of gel is higher.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110569014000399SonohysterographyGel instillation sonohysterographySaline infusion sonohysterographyEndometrium investigation
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Yahia El-Faissal
Ahmed El lithy
spellingShingle Yahia El-Faissal
Ahmed El lithy
Gel-instillation versus saline infusion during sonohysterography: Any advantages?
Middle East Fertility Society Journal
Sonohysterography
Gel instillation sonohysterography
Saline infusion sonohysterography
Endometrium investigation
author_facet Yahia El-Faissal
Ahmed El lithy
author_sort Yahia El-Faissal
title Gel-instillation versus saline infusion during sonohysterography: Any advantages?
title_short Gel-instillation versus saline infusion during sonohysterography: Any advantages?
title_full Gel-instillation versus saline infusion during sonohysterography: Any advantages?
title_fullStr Gel-instillation versus saline infusion during sonohysterography: Any advantages?
title_full_unstemmed Gel-instillation versus saline infusion during sonohysterography: Any advantages?
title_sort gel-instillation versus saline infusion during sonohysterography: any advantages?
publisher SpringerOpen
series Middle East Fertility Society Journal
issn 1110-5690
publishDate 2015-03-01
description Objective: To evaluate if gel-instillation sonography (GIS) is superior to saline infusion, during sonohysterography performed in patients to investigate the endometrial cavity. Design: A prospective observational study. Setting: The Outpatient Clinic, the Ultrasonography Department and the Office Hysteroscopy Clinic of Cairo University Medical School Hospital, Kasr El Eini. Patients: We included 100 women aged 20–45 years, presenting to the outpatient clinic of our University Hospital. Interventions: Two groups of patients were included, in the first (53 patients) saline infusion sonography (SIS) was performed, in the second (47 patients), we did GIS. The patients then underwent office diagnostic hysteroscopy (DH). Main outcome measures: The procedure time, uterine distension time, pain scoring, the sensitivity and the specificity of each test. Results: Mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the saline group than in the gel group (10.23 ± 1.69 and 14.45 ± 1.62 min, respectively, P-value = 0.0001). The uterine distention time was significantly longer in the second group (21.94 s ± 2.28), while in the first it was 7.96 ± 2.37 (P-value = 0.0001). The pain score was higher in the second group (mean = 1.45 ± 0.72) compared to 1.13 ± 0.68 in the first (P-value of 0.007). The specificity of testing with saline was 100% and the sensitivity was 64.28%, whereas in the gel group they were 97.22% and 81.81%, respectively. Conclusions: Using GIS increased the procedure time, uterine distension time and patients’ discomfort without effect on diagnostic accuracy. Both tests are highly specific, but the sensitivity of gel is higher.
topic Sonohysterography
Gel instillation sonohysterography
Saline infusion sonohysterography
Endometrium investigation
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110569014000399
work_keys_str_mv AT yahiaelfaissal gelinstillationversussalineinfusionduringsonohysterographyanyadvantages
AT ahmedellithy gelinstillationversussalineinfusionduringsonohysterographyanyadvantages
_version_ 1725434808190894080