4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

A prospective evaluation of uterine abnormalities by saline infusion sonohysterography in 1,009 women with infertility or abnormal uterine bleeding

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 86, 期 6, 页码 1731-1735

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.05.044

关键词

saline infusion sonohysterography; uterine anomalies; infertility IVF; abnormal uterine bleeding; arcuate uterus; ART; hysterosonography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the role of saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) in the investigation of uterine abnormalities and malformations in patients referred for infertility work-up, compared with women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Academically oriented private practice. Patient(s): One thousand nine consecutive women examined by SIS for infertility work-up (n = 600, infertility group) or AUB investigation (n = 409, AUB group). Intervention(s): SIS. Main Outcome Measure(s): Intracavitary abnormalities and uterine anomalies. Result(s): Among the women in the infertility group, 16.2% (n=97) were found to have intracavitary crew 09, abnormalities, including polyps (13.0%), submucous fibroids (2.8%), and adhesigns (0.3%). Significantly, more patients in the AUB group (39.6%, n = 162) revealed intracavitary abnormalities including polyps (29.8%), submucous fibroids (9.0%), and adhesions (0.7%). In contrast, significantly more uterine anomalies were found in the infertility group (20%, n = 120) compared with the AUB group (9.5% n = 39). Arcuate uterus was the most common finding (15% vs. 6.4% of patients, respectively). Conclusion(s): An SIS procedure for infertility work-up revealed a substantial percentage of infertile patients with intracavitary abnormalities and uterine anomalies. Because the technique is safe, well tolerated, and feasible in an outpatient setting, SIS should be considered routinely in the early staged of infertility and AUB investigation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据