ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography (MR-HSG) to demonstrate fallopian tube patency in infertile women and to improve the MR-HSG technique. Sixteen consecutive infertile women were recruited for this trial. All subjects underwent clinically indicated MR-HSG: 10-15 ml of 1:10 solution of gadolinium and normal sterile saline (0.9%) was gently hand-injected intracervically through a 7 French balloon catheter while seven consecutive flash-3D dynamic (FL 3D DY) T1-weighted MR sequences were acquired. Two readers independently assessed image quality as well as anatomic and pathologic correlations. Patient comfort was evaluated using a specific score questionnaire. MR-HSG was successfully completed in all patients. In 14/16 (87.4%) patients, MR-HSG showed bilateral tubal patency with symmetric contrast agent diffusion and a regular tubo-ovarian relationship. One patient (6.3%) with monolateral hydrosalpinx presented no contrast agent diffusion in the affected side (monolateral tubal occlusion); in another patient (6.3%) the fallopian tube was displaced upward causing loss of the tubo-ovarian anatomical relationship resulting in asymmetric and inadequate contrast agent diffusion. Eight women (50%) were found to have abnormalities on MR imaging; these abnormalities included multi follicular ovaries (5 cases 31.1%), endometrioma (1 case, 6.3%), leiomyoma (1 case/6.3%) and endometrial polyp (1 case/6.3%). The average time required for the study was 25-30 minutes. Analysis of the questionnaires administered to the patients showed that 15/16 patients (93.7%) were fully satisfied with the procedure. All examinations were judged to be of high diagnostic quality and the two readers made similar diagnoses. In conclusion, MR-HSG is a feasible, useful and well tolerated tool for the assessment of the uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries and extra-uterine structures. MR-HSG is a new promising imaging approach to female infertility.
Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology 01/2012; 39(1):83-8. · 0.43 Impact Factor