Venous intravasation as a complication and potential pitfall during hysterosalpingography: re-emerging study with a novel classification.

Abdurrahim Dusak, Hatice E Soydinc, Hakan Onder, Faysal Ekinci, Neval Y Görük, Cihat Hamidi, Aslan Bilici
Author Information
  1. Abdurrahim Dusak: Department of Radiology, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey.
  2. Hatice E Soydinc: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey.
  3. Hakan Onder: Department of Radiology, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey.
  4. Faysal Ekinci: Department of Radiology, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey.
  5. Neval Y Görük: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey.
  6. Cihat Hamidi: Department of Radiology, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey.
  7. Aslan Bilici: Department of Radiology, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Presently, hysterosalpingography (HSG) is used as a means to evaluate women with infertility and repetitive pregnancy loss. Venous intravasation is a complication and potential pitfall during HSG and analogous procedures including hysteroscopy. The aim of our study was to assess the venous intravasation and to obtain critical information for more secure and more accurate procedures. In particular, the primary goal of the present study was to compare HSG without and with intravasation to identify differences seen on HSG and to assess the predisposing factors of intravasation. The secondary goal was to describe clinical- and imaging-based novel classification of intravasation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included a patient cohort of 569 patients who underwent HSG between 2008 and 2011 at our center in the absence (control group) or presence (study group) of intravasation. Intravasation classified from level 0 (no intravasation) to level 3 (severe intravasation) was compared with preprocedural (demographic and clinical) and procedural (HSG) data. Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) statistical software.
RESULTS: Of the 569 patients undergoing HSG, 528 showed no intravasation and 41 (7.2%) patients showed intravasation when associated with preprocedural (leukocytes, menometrorrhagia, secondary infertility, ectopic pregnancy, abortus, polycystic ovaries, endometriosis, and interventions) and procedural (pain, scheduling, endometrial-uterine nature, and spillage) parameters. Moreover, intravasation was lower in women with smooth endometrium, triangular uterus, and homogeneous peritoneal spillage. No association was found between age, tubal patency, increased pressure, and intravasation.
CONCLUSIONS: Using a novel classification method, intravasation can be observed in women during HSG and associates with preprocedural and procedural predisposing factors in subsumed conditions. This classification method will be useful for improving the efficiency and accuracy of HSG and related procedures by minimization of severe complications caused by intravasation.

Keywords

References

  1. Theriogenology. 2005 Jul 1;64(1):12-29 [PMID: 15935839]
  2. Radiology. 1985 Mar;154(3):597-600 [PMID: 3969459]
  3. J Natl Med Assoc. 1935 Nov;27(4):153-8 [PMID: 20892696]
  4. J Ultrasound Med. 2012 Feb;31(2):319-31 [PMID: 22298877]
  5. Isr Med Assoc J. 2011 Jan;13(1):51-4 [PMID: 21446238]
  6. BJOG. 2009 Jan;116(2):304-12 [PMID: 19076963]
  7. Hum Reprod. 2006 Apr;21(4):1052-4 [PMID: 16373408]
  8. J Int Med Res. 2010 Sep-Oct;38(5):1780-4 [PMID: 21309493]
  9. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991 Jul;157(1):77-80 [PMID: 1675547]
  10. Fertil Steril. 2004 Nov;82(5):1286-92; discussion 1299 [PMID: 15533344]
  11. Hum Reprod. 2006 Jul;21(7):1878-83 [PMID: 16585125]
  12. Can J Anaesth. 1997 May;44(5 Pt 1):473-8 [PMID: 9161739]
  13. Surg Radiol Anat. 2003 Jul-Aug;25(3-4):200-6 [PMID: 12910382]
  14. Fertil Steril. 2004 Nov;82(5):1264-72 [PMID: 15533340]
  15. Obstet Gynecol. 1987 Sep;70(3 Pt 1):309-12 [PMID: 3627577]
  16. Hum Reprod. 2002 Jan;17(1):1-3 [PMID: 11756351]
  17. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jun;19(3):207-14 [PMID: 17495635]
  18. Afr Health Sci. 2004 Dec;4(3):178-81 [PMID: 15687070]
  19. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2007 Mar;13(1):26-9 [PMID: 17354191]
  20. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Dec;54(4):696-709 [PMID: 22031259]
  21. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Aug;14(4):409-15 [PMID: 12151831]
  22. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1986 Dec;24(6):431-3 [PMID: 20419905]
  23. Singapore Med J. 2007 Apr;48(4):368-73; quiz 374 [PMID: 17384889]
  24. Hum Reprod. 2004 Apr;19(4):924-31 [PMID: 15016770]
  25. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jun;196(6):537.e1-11 [PMID: 17547885]
  26. J Radiol Case Rep. 2012 Sep;6(9):18-22 [PMID: 23378884]
  27. Australas Radiol. 2001 Feb;45(1):98-9 [PMID: 11259981]
  28. Rontgenblatter. 1984 Jan;37(1):26-8 [PMID: 6701433]
  29. Radiology. 1991 Apr;179(1):69-74 [PMID: 1848715]
  30. Eur Radiol. 2004 Mar;14 Suppl 3:E184-92 [PMID: 14749959]
  31. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Jan;186(1):24-9 [PMID: 16357372]
  32. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Jul;177(1):131-5 [PMID: 11418413]
  33. Radiol Med. 2011 Dec;116(8):1267-87 [PMID: 21892720]
  34. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 07;(4):CD001501 [PMID: 19821278]
  35. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004 Dec;183(6):1725-7 [PMID: 15547218]
  36. Hum Reprod. 1998 Jan;13(1):75-7 [PMID: 9512232]
  37. Radiographics. 2006 Mar-Apr;26(2):419-31 [PMID: 16549607]
  38. Radiology. 1991 Jul;180(1):97-9 [PMID: 1647040]
  39. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011 May;156(1):60-6 [PMID: 21292383]
  40. Radiographics. 1988 Nov;8(6):1041-58 [PMID: 3060910]
  41. Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol. 1983 Jun;9(2):155-8 [PMID: 6615327]
  42. Hum Reprod. 2003 Jun;18(6):1223-30 [PMID: 12773450]
  43. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008 Apr;137(2):210-6 [PMID: 17459564]
  44. Swiss Med Wkly. 2006 Sep 16;136(37-38):583-90 [PMID: 17043951]
  45. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991 Oct;157(4):675-83 [PMID: 1892018]
  46. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004 Nov;183(5):1405-9 [PMID: 15505312]
  47. Hum Reprod. 2003 Dec;18(12):2608-9 [PMID: 14645179]
  48. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010 Jan;108(1):79-84 [PMID: 19716128]
  49. BMJ. 1990 Feb 3;300(6720):304-5 [PMID: 2106961]
  50. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2007 Jul;1(2):223-7 [PMID: 21475432]
  51. Respirology. 2004 Mar;9(1):134-6 [PMID: 14982616]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0intravasationHSGstudyclassificationnovelwomenpotentialprocedurespatientspreproceduralproceduralhysterosalpingographyinfertilitypregnancyVenouscomplicationpitfallassessvenousgoalpredisposingfactorssecondary569grouplevelsevereshowedspillagemethodOBJECTIVES:Presentlyusedmeansevaluaterepetitivelossanalogousincludinghysteroscopyaimobtaincriticalinformationsecureaccurateparticularprimarypresentcomparewithoutidentifydifferencesseendescribeclinical-imaging-basedMATERIALSANDMETHODS:includedpatientcohortunderwent20082011centerabsencecontrolpresenceIntravasationclassified03compareddemographicclinicaldataDataanalyzedusingStatisticalPackageSocialSciencesSPSSstatisticalsoftwareRESULTS:undergoing5284172%associatedleukocytesmenometrorrhagiaectopicabortuspolycysticovariesendometriosisinterventionspainschedulingendometrial-uterinenatureparametersMoreoverlowersmoothendometriumtriangularuterushomogeneousperitonealassociationfoundagetubalpatencyincreasedpressureCONCLUSIONS:Usingcanobservedassociatessubsumedconditionswillusefulimprovingefficiencyaccuracyrelatedminimizationcomplicationscausedhysterosalpingography:re-emergingComplicationspitfalls

Similar Articles

Cited By