Utility of Saline Infusion Sonohysterography in Gynecology: A Review Article.

Kingshuk Kumar, Sandhya Pajai, Geeta R Baidya, Krishnendu Majhi
Author Information
  1. Kingshuk Kumar: Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, IND.
  2. Sandhya Pajai: Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, IND.
  3. Geeta R Baidya: Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aashirwad Nursing Home, Ghatsila, IND.
  4. Krishnendu Majhi: Medicine, Employees' State Insurance Dispensary, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur, IND.

Abstract

This study aimed to describe the role played by saline infusion sonohysterosalpingography (SIS) in the evaluation of uterine lesions. Saline infusion sonohysterosalpingography provides three-dimensional (3D) images with high resolution, which, in turn, gives a good orientation to clinicians and radiologists, in most cases, about the underlying endometrial and tubal pathologies. Saline infusion sonohysterosalpingography is an underused imaging modality that has some advantages over other conventional imaging modalities. It can be used in the diagnosis of gynecological conditions. Saline infusion sonohysterosalpingography gets an edge over other modalities because of its ease of use, cost efficacy, and non-invasive nature while having comparable or even better accuracy than most imaging modalities used in gynecological conditions. Its cost efficacy and excellent pathological characterization make it an imaging modality beneficial for Indian healthcare setups as a whole, and rural healthcare setups in particular where patients cannot afford expensive investigations. This review covers indications and contraindications, imaging technique, drawbacks in imaging, use of SIS in various uterine pathologies, and, in the end, a comparison of SIS with other imaging modalities. Saline infusion sonohysterosalpingography is indicated in most of the prevalent gynecological diseases in India with the reported post-procedural complications being very few. There are a few contraindications as well which should be kept in mind and these are mentioned later. During the procedure, aseptic precautions should be taken. Comparison between imaging modalities will bring out the better modality for a particular case according to the need of the patient.

Keywords

References

  1. World J Radiol. 2013 Mar 28;5(3):81-7 [PMID: 23671744]
  2. Radiographics. 1999 Oct;19 Spec No:S161-70 [PMID: 10517452]
  3. Radiographics. 2011 Nov-Dec;31(7):1991-2004 [PMID: 22084183]
  4. Fertil Steril. 2003 Sep;80(3):620-4 [PMID: 12969709]
  5. Radiology. 2000 Jan;214(1):47-52 [PMID: 10644100]
  6. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Aug;177(2):297-302 [PMID: 11461849]
  7. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993 Sep;161(3):595-9 [PMID: 8352114]
  8. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010 Jan-Feb;17(1):1-7 [PMID: 20129325]
  9. Radiology. 1992 Jun;183(3):795-800 [PMID: 1584936]
  10. Radiology. 1994 Mar;190(3):803-6 [PMID: 8115630]
  11. Am Fam Physician. 2016 Mar 15;93(6):468-74 [PMID: 26977831]
  12. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Apr;192(4):1112-6 [PMID: 19304722]
  13. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2010 Jul;4(3):55-62 [PMID: 21472065]
  14. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2003 Aug;14(4):269-79 [PMID: 14578774]
  15. Zentralbl Gynakol. 1997;119(8):366-73 [PMID: 9286072]
  16. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Jan;186(1):24-9 [PMID: 16357372]
  17. J Gynecol Oncol. 2016 Jan;27(1):e8 [PMID: 26463434]
  18. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2010 Jul;21(4):237-45 [PMID: 22082772]
  19. Radiographics. 1999 Oct;19 Spec No:S147-60 [PMID: 10517451]
  20. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2013 Dec 27;11:118 [PMID: 24373209]
  21. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 Dec;96(12):1399-1403 [PMID: 28832907]
  22. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1994 May 1;4(3):245-53 [PMID: 12797192]
  23. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Mar;186(3):409-15 [PMID: 11904599]
  24. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2009 Nov;28(6):522-8 [PMID: 19851198]
  25. Radiology. 2000 Oct;217(1):228-35 [PMID: 11012449]
  26. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Aug;18(2):157-62 [PMID: 11529998]
  27. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001 May;73(2):125-9 [PMID: 11336731]
  28. Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Aug;104(2):393-406 [PMID: 15292018]
  29. J Ultrasound Med. 2014 Jan;33(1):149-54 [PMID: 24371110]
  30. J Ultrasound Med. 2004 Jan;23(1):97-112; quiz 114-5 [PMID: 14756358]
  31. Fertil Steril. 2011 Jun;95(7):2171-9 [PMID: 21457959]
  32. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Dec;35(12):2173-2180 [PMID: 30194618]
  33. J Res Med Sci. 2011 Apr;16(4):574-9 [PMID: 22091277]
  34. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1998 May;11(5):337-42 [PMID: 9644773]
  35. Radiology. 2000 Jul;216(1):260-4 [PMID: 10887258]
  36. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2007 Jan;1(1):17-24 [PMID: 21475448]
  37. Radiology. 2001 Sep;220(3):765-73 [PMID: 11526280]
  38. Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi. 2009 Jul-Sep;113(3):803-8 [PMID: 20191836]
  39. Fertil Steril. 2007 Apr;87(4):725-36 [PMID: 17430732]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0imaginginfusionsonohysterosalpingographysisSalinemodalitiessalineuterinemodalitygynecologicalendometrialpathologiesusedconditionsusecostefficacybetterhealthcaresetupsparticularcontraindicationsstudyaimeddescriberoleplayedSISevaluationlesionsprovidesthree-dimensional3Dimageshighresolutionturngivesgoodorientationcliniciansradiologistscasesunderlyingtubalis anunderusedadvantagesconventionalcandiagnosisgetsedgeeasenon-invasivenaturecomparableevenaccuracyexcellentpathologicalcharacterizationmakebeneficialIndianwholeruralpatientsaffordexpensiveinvestigationsreviewcoversindicationstechniquedrawbacksSIS invariousendcomparisonSIS withindicatedprevalentdiseasesIndiareportedpost-proceduralcomplicationswellkeptmindmentionedlaterprocedureasepticprecautionstakenComparisonwillbringcaseaccordingneedpatientUtilityInfusionSonohysterographyGynecology:ReviewArticlesonohysterographyadenomyosisaubcongenitalabnormalitiescarcinomasubmucousfibroidsynechiae

Similar Articles

Cited By