Diagnostic Efficiency and Reproducibility of Hysterosalpingography
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ISSN: 2572-3235 Ahmed and Taleb. Int J Radiol Imaging Technol 2019, 5:051 DOI: 10.23937/2572-3235.1510051 International Journal of Volume 5 | Issue 2 Open Access Radiology and Imaging Technology ORIGINAL ARTICLE Diagnostic Efficiency and Reproducibility of Hysterosalpingography Shimaa Abdalla Ahmed1* and Hesham Abo Taleb2 1South Egypt Cancer Institute, Assiut University, Egypt Check for 2Women Health Hospital, Assiut University, Egypt updates *Corresponding author: Shimaa Abdalla Ahmed, Lecturer of Radiodiagnosis, South Egypt Cancer Institute, Assiut University, Assiut, el Azhar street, Egypt, Tel: 002-0100-765-3325, ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0908-8865 Abstract Introduction Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of HSG compared to Hysterosalpingography (HSG) is one of the most hysteroscopy and or laparoscopy and compare intra and commonly used imaging modalities in the evaluation interobserver variability. of an infertile female [1]. It is still the gold standard in Methods: 200 infertile females underwent hysterosalpin- the evaluation of tubal patency and can also evaluate gography, hysteroscopy and/or laparoscopy as part of an infertility work up. HSG examinations were retrospectively uterine cavity abnormalities. Tubal damage represents reviewed by three radiologists, we compared inter-observ- the most important cause of infertility, it has an intrinsic er variability, differences between the two results of reading cause like salpingitis or extrinsic cause like pelvic sur- the same examination after three months were compared to gery. In a meta-analysis by Swart, et al. [2], HSG sen- calculate intra-observer variability. sitivity and specificity in evaluating tubal patency was Final diagnosis was compared to hysteroscopy and/or 65% and 83%, respectively. in peri tubal adhesions was laparoscopy. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of each HSG diagnosis was assessed. found to be below 50% and considered unreliable [2]. Results: Intra-observer reliability was variable: observer 1 (k Uterine cavity abnormalities represent 10% of sub = 0.21; observer 2 (k = 0.57); observer 3 (k = 0.65). Highest fertile women and 50% of recurrent implantation fail- agreement was seen in the detection of a normal uterus, normal tubes and uterine filling defect, lowest agreement ure [3]. seen in the detection of uterine and pelvic adhesions. Intrauterine filling defects detected by HSG includes First round results showed moderate agreement between multiple differential diagnoses like polyps, sub-mucosal the three pairs of radiologists (k = 0.53-0.42), second round results showed the substantial agreement of observer 1 (k fibroids, endometrial hyperplasia, and Asherman’s syn- = 0.62), moderate agreement was seen between radiologist drome. The sensitivity of HSG in detecting uterine cavity 2 and 3 (k = 0.44). ranged from 60-98%, while specificity ranged from 15- With consensus diagnosis of all readers combined, HSG 80% [4]. overall accuracy in tubal pathology and uterine cavitary lesions diagnosis was 93%, and 85%, respectively. Lowest Tubal damage or uterine cavity abnormality detect- accuracy was seen in uterine adhesions 71%. ed by HSG as the cause of infertility, will help the gy- Conclusion: HSG is more accurate in tubal evaluation necologist to decide which operational techniques the than the uterine cavity assessment. HSG interpretation is patients will undergo (laparoscopy, hysteroscopy or sur- somewhat subjective, although experience and training may gery) [5]. Although laparoscopy is superior to HSG in the improve reporting skills and interpretation results, however, considerable observer variability exists. The gynecologist evaluation of pelvic pathology and peritoneal factors should carefully interpret HSG results and provide future of infertility, HSG is more economical and less invasive, management based on comprehensive clinical and radio- both diagnostic methods are complementary [6]. logical data. HSG’ comment or films reading is crucial, interpre- Keywords tation of results will affect the next additional surgical Hysterosalpingogram, Hysteroscopy, Laparoscopy, Infertility, attempts that will be needed, unfortunately, these in- Inter-observer variability, Tubal obstruction, Pelvic adhesions terpretations may be affected by inter and intra-observ- Citation: Ahmed SA, Taleb HA (2019) Diagnostic Efficiency and Reproducibility of Hysterosalpingography. Int J Radiol Imaging Technol 5:051. doi.org/10.23937/2572-3235.1510051 Accepted: August 08, 2019: Published: August 10, 2019 Copyright: © 2019 Ahmed SA, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Ahmed and Taleb. Int J Radiol Imaging Technol 2019, 5:051 • Page 1 of 7 • DOI: 10.23937/2572-3235.1510051 ISSN: 2572-3235 er variability in reading [5]. or bilateral hydrosalpinx [2], unilateral or bilateral cor- nual obstruction [3], unilateral or bilateral distal obst- The previous study included clinicians only de- ruction [4], pelvic adhesions [5]. scribed poor to fair interobserver reliability of the HSG [5], only two studies in the literature were designed for The results of first reading and results of second assessment of clinicians and radiologist’s observer vari- reading after three months later were recorded to ability in HSG interpretation [1,7]. Okaya, et al. [1] re- calculate inter and intra-observer variability. ported more interobserver variability by clinicians than Finally, the three radiologists interpreted all HSG radiologists and concluded that radiologists were more examinations with a consensus to reach a final diag- compatible than clinicians, in contrast to Renbaum, et nosis which compared with the gold standard (hyste- al. [7] who described the low interobserver agreement roscopy and/or laparoscopy). between readers with general good interobserver reli- ability. Statistical Analysis While keeping in mind that high reproducibility is IBM SPSS Statistics version 21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, essential for a clinical test to achieve high diagnostic NY) was used for data analysis. Interobserver and in- accuracy, also, diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility terobserver agreement were tested for the presence of of HSG may be affected by local circumstances, such a uterine cavity or tubal abnormalities, type of abnor- as experience. To the best of our knowledge, HSG mality (as stated in methodology section). Cohen’s kap- reproducibility exclusively among radiologists has not pa coefficient was used for calculation of interobserver been studied and the question can be posed, whether and interobserver agreement. Kappa value of 0.81-1.00 observer bias is responsible for variation in observed indicate excellent agreement, a k-value of 0.61-0.80 in- prevalence of uterine and tubal evaluation in an infertile dicate good agreement; a k-value of 0.41-0.60 indicate female. We conducted this study in our own setting to moderate agreement; a k-value of 0.21-0.40 indicates clarify accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability of fair agreement; a k-value of < 0.20 indicates poor agree- HSG in diagnosing tubal pathology and uterine cavitary ment [8]. The consistency of diagnosis between readers lesions. was estimated using interclass correlation (ICC) [9]. Materials and Methods True positive results were considered if HSG diagno- sis is confirmed by hysteroscopy or laparoscopy other- Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine of our wise, false positive results were considered. True neg- University approved this retrospective study conducted ative results were considered if no abnormality were at a University Hospital Center (Divisions of Reproduc- detected by HSG which confirmed by hysteroscopy and/ tive Endocrinology and Radiology), informed consent or laparoscopy; otherwise, false negative results were was not required. We searched medical records on pack considered. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, negative system over a 2-year period, 200 infertile females un- predictive values and accuracy of HSG was calculated. derwent hysterosalpingograms (HSG), hysteroscopy p-value ≤ 0.05. was considered as statistically signifi- and/or laparoscopy as part of infertility work up were cant. included in the study. Patients with a previous pelvic operation, malignancy, ectopic pregnancy were exclu- Results ded from the study. The mean duration between HSG Two hundred women were analyzed in this study, and laparoscopy was 3 ± 1.1 month, and between HSG 123 women had primary infertility (61.5%) and 77 had and hysteroscopy was 2 ± 0.5 months. secondary infertility (38.5%). Mean age of women in our Standard HSG examination with good quality (includ- study was 30.36 ± 3.79 years. ing first and second films) were included in the study, Among 200 women, hysteroscopy and HSG showed they were evaluated by three radiologists who were a normal uterine cavity in 72 (36%) and 68 in (34%) re- specifically involved in HSG reading on a weekly basis, spectively. Abnormal cavity in 128 (64%) and 132 (66%) but with various levels of experience; two years’ expe- respectively. rience [1], five years’ experience [1], and ten years’ ex- perience [1]. Among 128 women laparoscopy and HSG showed normal tubes in 89 (69.5%) and in 86 (67.1%) respec- Each reader interpreted 10 HSG examinations in each tively. Abnormal tubes in 39 (30.5%) and in 42 (32.8%), session, the duration of each session was