No pain relief by virtual reality during hysterosalpingography (HSG): results from a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is virtual reality (VR) an effective non-pharmacological tool to reduce procedural pain during hysterosalpingography (HSG)? SUMMARY ANSWER: An HSG with VR does not reduce procedural pain scores compared to an HSG without VR. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: An HSG is often experienced as painful and uncomfortable. VR has been proven successful to reduce acute procedural pain during a variety of medical procedures and interventions. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a two-centre open-label randomized controlled trial between January 2021 and October 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women scheduled for HSG as part of their infertility work-up were screened for participation. After informed consent, women were randomized between HSG with or without VR. Due to the nature of the intervention, the study was not blinded. VR was administered by a head-mounted device displaying nature movies and/or relaxation exercises. The primary endpoint was procedural pain measured using VAS (scale 0.0-10.0 cm). Procedural pain was divided into overall pain score and peak pain score during the procedure. It was measured immediately after HSG. Secondary endpoints included patient satisfaction, VR preferences, and adverse effects of VR. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included a total of 134 women, 69 to the intervention group (HSG with VR) and 65 to the control group (HSG without VR). The mean VAS for peak pain was 6.80 cm (SD 2.25) in the intervention group versus 6.60 cm (SD 2.40) in the control group (mean difference 0.28 (95% CI -0.57, 1.12), P = 0.52). The mean VAS for overall pain was 5.00 cm (SD 2.10) in the intervention group versus 4.90 cm (SD 2.13) in the control group (mean difference 0.06 (95% CI -0.71, 0.84), P = 0.88). The expectation that VR would be a good distraction from pain during HSG was correlated with both overall and peak pain scores. When correcting for this expectation, we found that women in the intervention group reported significantly higher scores, both in peak (adjusted MD 0.58 (95% CI -0.81, 1.97), P = 0.021) and overall (adjusted MD 0.43 (95% CI -0.84, 1.71), P = 0.013) pain, compared to the control group. There were no differences in the prevalence of symptoms that were considered as adverse effects of VR. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was not blinded. Reasons for declining participation in the study were anxiety or wanting full control during HSG, which might have created selection bias. The distraction score possibly indicates that the level of VR immersiveness was not optimal due to the lack of sound and/or the type of VR applications. Future studies should investigate whether more immersive or interactive VR applications could decrease procedural pain scores during HSG. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since VR does not reduce procedural pain, this additional tool should not be used during HSG. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no external funding for this study. KR and AvH report receiving a travel grant from Merck outside the scope of this study. BM is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) investigator grant (GNT1176437) and BM reports consultancy for Merck, Organon, and Norgine and travel and research funding from Merck. BM holds stock for ObsEva. CL reports receiving research grants from Merck, and Ferring. KD and VM report receiving travel and speaker's fees from Guerbet and research grants from Guerbet. VM also reports research grants from Merck and Ferring. The remaining authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial is registered prospectively in the Netherlands Trial Register (trialregister.nl registration number NL9203, currently accessible on trialsearch.who.int). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 16-01-2021. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: The first participant was enrolled on 19 January 2021.

Neurodevelopmental outcomes of school-age children conceived after hysterosalpingography with oil-based or water-based iodinated contrast: long-term follow-up of a nationwide randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does preconceptional exposure to oil-based iodinated contrast media during hysterosalpingography (HSG) impact children's neurodevelopment compared with exposure to water-based alternatives? SUMMARY ANSWER: Our study found no large-sized effects for neurodevelopment in children with preconceptional exposure to oil-based iodinated contrast media during HSG compared with water-based alternatives. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: HSG is widely used as a diagnostic tool in the female fertility work-up. Tubal flushing with oil-based iodinated contrast has been shown to enhance fertility outcomes in couples with unexplained infertility, increasing the chances of pregnancy and live birth compared with water-based alternatives. However, oil-based contrast contains higher doses of iodine and has a longer half-life, and concerns exist that iodinated contrast media can affect women's iodine status and cause temporary (sub)clinical hypothyroidism in mothers and/or foetuses. Considering that thyroid hormones are vital to embryonal and foetal brain development, oil-based contrast media use could increase the risk of impaired neurodevelopment in children conceived shortly after HSG. Here we examine neurodevelopmental outcomes in school-aged children conceived after HSG. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a long-term follow-up of the H2Oil trial in which oil-based or water-based contrast was used during HSG (Netherlands; 2012-2014; NTR3270). Of 369 children born <6 months after HSG in the study, we contacted the mothers of 140 children who gave consent to be contacted for follow-up. The follow-up study took place from January to July 2022 (NCT05168228). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: The study included 69 children aged 6-9 years who were conceived after HSG with oil-based (n = 42) or water-based contrast (n = 27). The assessments targeted intelligence (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children), neurocognitive outcomes (computerized neurocognitive tests), behavioural functioning (parent and teacher questionnaires), and academic performance. Linear regression models, adjusted for age, sex, and parental educational attainment were employed to compare groups. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: School-aged children born to mothers after oil-based contrast HSG did not significantly differ from children born to mothers after water-based contrast HSG, in regards to intelligence, neurocognitive functioning, behavioural functioning, or academic performance, with the exception of better performance for visuomotor integration functions in children exposed to oil-based contrast preconception. After exploratory correction for multiple comparisons, none of the group differences was statistically significant. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The small sample size of this follow-up study limited statistical power. This study provides evidence for the absence of large-sized differences between preconceptional exposure to the two contrast media types but does not rule out more subtle effects on neurodevelopment compared to naturally conceived children without preconceptional exposure to HSG. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study contributes to our knowledge about the long-term effects of different types of iodinated contrast media used in fertility work-up, indicating that choosing oil-based over water-based iodinated contrast media is unlikely to have major effect on the long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes of children conceived shortly after HSG. However, further research should focus on the overall safety of iodine exposure during HSG, comparing children conceived after HSG to those conceived naturally as both types of contrast contain high amounts of iodine. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The original H2Oil randomized controlled trial was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic hospitals now merged into the Amsterdam University Medical Centre. The current follow-up study (Neuro-H2Oil) is funded through a research grant awarded to the authors by the Amsterdam Reproduction & Development (AR&D) research institute. S.K. is funded by a AMC MD/PhD Scholarship from the Amsterdam UMC. S.K. reports holding voluntary roles in the civil society organizations Universities Allied for Essential Medicines and People's Health Movement. V.M. reports receiving travel and speaker fees as well as research grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring. K.D. reports receiving travel and speaker fees as well as research grants from Guerbet. BWM is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy, travel support and research funding from Merck, consultancy for Organon and Norgine, and holding stock from ObsEva. The other authors report no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05168228.

The effect of prior hysterosalpingo-foam sonography or hysterosalpingography on tubal patency: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) prior to hysterosalpingography (HSG) or HSG prior to HyFoSy affect visible tubal patency when compared HSG or HyFoSy alone? SUMMARY ANSWER: Undergoing either HyFoSy or HSG prior to tubal patency testing by the alternative method does not demonstrate a significant difference in visible tubal patency when compared to HyFoSy or HSG alone. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: HyFoSy and HSG are two commonly used visual tubal patency tests with a high and comparable diagnostic accuracy for evaluating tubal patency. These tests may also improve fertility, although the underlying mechanism is still not fully understood. One of the hypotheses points to a dislodgment of mucus plugs that may have disrupted the patency of the Fallopian tubes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a secondary analysis of the randomized controlled FOAM study, in which women underwent tubal patency testing by HyFoSy and HSG, randomized for order of the procedure. Participants either had HyFoSy first and then HSG, or vice versa. Here, we evaluate the relative effectiveness of tubal patency testing by HyFoSy or HSG prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method on visible tubal patency, compared to each method alone. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Infertile women aged between 18 and 41 years scheduled for tubal patency testing were eligible for participating in the FOAM study. Women with anovulatory cycles, endometriosis, or with a partner with male infertility were excluded. To evaluate the effect HyFoSy on tubal patency, we relied on HSG results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HSG in those who underwent and who did not undergo HyFoSy prior to their HSG (HyFoSy prior to HSG versus HSG alone). To evaluate the effect of HSG on tubal patency, we relied on HyFoSy results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HyFoSy in those who underwent and who did not undergo HSG prior to their HyFoSy (HSG prior to HyFoSy versus HyFoSy alone). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, we randomized 1160 women (576 underwent HyFoSy first followed by HSG, and 584 underwent HSG first followed by HyFoSy). Among the women randomized to HyFoSy prior to HSG, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HSG in 467/537 (87%) women, compared with 472/544 (87%) women who underwent HSG alone (risk difference 0.2%; 95% CI: -3.8% to 4.2%). Among the women randomized to HSG prior to HyFoSy, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HyFoSy in 394/471 (84%) women, compared with 428/486 (88%) women who underwent HyFoSy alone (risk difference -4.4%; 95% CI: -8.8% to 0.0%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results of this secondary analysis should be interpreted as exploratory and cannot be regarded as definitive evidence. Furthermore, it has to be noted that pregnancy outcomes were not considered in this analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Tubal patency testing by either HyFoSy or HSG, prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method does not significantly affect visible tubal patency, when compared to alternative method alone. This suggests that both methods may have comparable abilities to dislodge mucus plugs in the Fallopian tubes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data. H.R.V. reports consultancy fees from Ferring. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford University Press in the role of Deputy Editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a Data Safety and Monitoring Board as an independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. M.v.W. is coordinating editor of Cochrane Fertility and Gynaecology. B.W.J.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC (GNT1176437) and research funding from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Organon and Merck KGaA, and travel support from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports holding stocks of ObsEva. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring and travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility work-up: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%; P = 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied 1160 infertile women (18-41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies-management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results-the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost €136 and HSG €280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were €3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and €3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference €-119; 95% CI: €-125 to €-114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was €10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save €10 042 per each additional live birth lost. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting-and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

Outpatient hysteroscopy impact on subsequent assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis in patients with normal transvaginal sonography or hysterosalpingography images.

BACKGROUND: Standard management for intrauterine lesions typically involves initial imaging followed by operative hysteroscopy for suspicious findings. However, the efficacy of routine outpatient hysteroscopy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) remains uncertain due to a lack of decisive high-quality evidence. This study aimed to determine whether outpatient hysteroscopy is beneficial for infertile women who have unremarkable imaging results prior to undergoing ART. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines, incorporating data up to May 31, 2023, from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome assessed was the live birth rate, with secondary outcomes including chemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy rates, and miscarriage rates. Statistical analysis involved calculating risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals and assessing heterogeneity with the I2 statistic. RESULTS: The analysis included ten randomized control trials. Receiving outpatient hysteroscopy before undergoing ART was associated with increased live birth (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03-1.45, I2 61%) and clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.27 95% CI 1.10-1.47, I2 53%). Miscarriage rates did not differ significantly (RR 1.25, CI 0.90-1.76, I2 50%). Subgroup analyses did not show a significant difference in clinical pregnancy rates when comparing normal versus abnormal hysteroscopic findings (RR 1.01, CI 0.78-1.32, I2 38%). We analyzed data using both intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches, and our findings were consistent across both analytical methods. CONCLUSIONS: Office hysteroscopy may enhance live birth and clinical pregnancy rates in infertile women undergoing ART, even when previous imaging studies show no apparent intrauterine lesions. Treating lesions not detected by imaging may improve ART outcomes. The most commonly missed lesions are endometrial polyps, submucosal fibroids and endometritis, which are all known to affect ART success rates. The findings suggested that hysteroscopy, given its diagnostic accuracy and patient tolerability, should be considered in the management of infertility. DATABASE REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systemic Review database (CRD42023476403).

Effect of radiation on serum anti-Müllerian hormone during hysterosalpingography in female infertility.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does radiation exposure during hysterosalpingography (HSG) negatively affect serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels in infertile women? DESIGN: Prospective cohort study conducted at Songklanagarind Hospital, Thailand, between April 2021 and May 2023. Thirty-two infertile women and 34 control participants were enrolled. Serum AMH levels were assessed in the infertile group at baseline before the HSG procedure and at 1 and 3 months after the procedure. Control participants, who self-reported no medical conditions, underwent the same AMH level assessments. Changes in serum AMH levels were compared. RESULTS: Infertile women had a mean age of 32.4 ± 3.8 years, body mass index of 21.2 ± 2.0 kg/m2 and baseline mean AMH level of 3.66 ng/ml (95% CI 3.00 to 4.32), which did not significantly differ from the control group. One month after HSG, mean AMH level significantly declined (0.33 ng/ml, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.01; P = 0.045) in the infertile group. The change in serum AMH levels between baseline and 1 month was significantly different in the HSG group compared with controls (-0.33 ng/ml, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.01 versus 0.36 ng/ml, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.67; P = 0.002). Changes in serum AMH levels from baseline to 3 months did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: One month after the HSG, infertile women experienced a significant decrease in serum AMH levels compared with controls. The change in serum AMH levels between baseline and 3 months after HSG did not significantly differ from that of the control group.

Contrast media for hysterosalpingography: systematic search and review providing new guidelines by the Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology.

OBJECTIVES: Hysterosalpingography (HSG) is widely used for evaluating the fallopian tubes; however, controversies regarding the use of water- or oil-based iodine-based contrast media (CM) remain. The aim of this work was (1) to discuss reported pregnancy rates related to the CM type used, (2) to validate the used CM in published literature, (3) to discuss possible complications and side effects of CM in HSG, and (4) to develop guidelines on the use of oil-based CM in HSG. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted for original RCT studies or review/meta-analyses on using water-based and oil-based CM in HSG with fertility outcomes and complications. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 reviews/meta-analyses were analyzed. Grading of the literature was performed based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2011 classification. RESULTS: An approximately 10% higher pregnancy rate is reported for oil-based CM. Side effects are rare, but oil-based CM have potentially more side effects on the maternal thyroid function and the peritoneum. CONCLUSIONS: 1. HSG with oil-based CM gives approximately 10% higher pregnancy rates. 2. External validity is limited, as in five of nine RCTs, the CM used is no longer on the market. 3. Oil-based CM have potentially more side effects on the maternal thyroid function and on the peritoneum. 4. Guideline: Maternal thyroid function should be tested before HSG with oil-based CM and monitored for 6 months after. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Oil-based CM is associated with an approximately 10% higher chance of pregnancy compared to water-based CM after HSG. Although side effects are rare, higher iodine concentration and slower clearance of oil-based CM may induce maternal thyroid function disturbance and peritoneal inflammation and granuloma formation. KEY POINTS: • It is unknown which type of contrast medium, oil-based or water-based, is the optimal for HSG. • Oil-based contrast media give a 10% higher chance of pregnancy after HSG, compared to water-based contrast media. • From the safety perspective, oil-based CM can cause thyroid dysfunction and an intra-abdominal inflammatory response in the patient.

Successful pregnancy outcome via in-vitro fertilization and laparoscopic resection of non-communicating rudimentary horn pregnancy containing early pregnancy: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Non-communicating rudimentary horn pregnancy (NCRHP) lead to life-threatening condition for both mother and fetus. Early diagnosis of NCRHP and laparoscopic resection is important to prevent catastrophic conditions. However, delayed diagnosis until the second or third trimester makes it difficult to accurately diagnose between NCRHP and bicornuate uterine pregnancy, as both conditions present uterine rupture and massive hemoperitoneum. Furthermore, these rare cases are challenging in pregnancy trials and associated with adverse outcomes in subsequent pregnancies. CASE PRESENTATION: A 31-year-old gravida 1 para 0 Korean woman visited our infertility center with a confirmed positive urine pregnancy test after timed intercourse. Before she was scheduled to have timed intercourse, a unicornuate uterus with a non-communicating right uterine horn was suspected based on an ultrasound scan and hysterosalpingography during the initial infertility workup. A gestational sac was observed in the right non-communicating rudimentary horn at 5 weeks of gestation. Serum beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (b-hCG) level was 2052.0mIU/mL. An elective laparoscopic resection of the right rudimentary horn containing a gestational sac, along with ipsilateral salpingectomy, was performed with no adverse event. After 3-month of recovery period and three cycles of conceptional trials involving timed intercourse and intrauterine insemination, in-vitro fertilization (IVF) was performed using the antagonist protocol, and successful pregnancy was confirmed. The patient had been hospitalized from 21 + 6 weeks to 35 + 6 weeks of gestation, underwent cerclage placement and tocolytics with corticosteroid treatment. She delivered an early-term male baby by cesarean section. CONCLUSION: In this rare case, the successful pregnancy achieved through IVF following the appropriate management of NCRHP under laparoscopy underscores the critical importance of early diagnosis and intervention in cases of NCRHP. Timely identification and management of NCRHP are vital to prevent the occurrence of catastrophic conditions and to enhance the prognosis of a successful pregnancy through assisted reproductive technology (ART). Therefore, a high index of suspicion for NCRHP is important and employs a range of diagnostic modalities.

The effectiveness of immediate versus delayed tubal flushing with oil-based contrast in women with unexplained infertility (H2Oil-timing study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In women with unexplained infertility, tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography leads to significantly more live births as compared to tubal flushing with water-based contrast during hysterosalpingography. However, it is unknown whether incorporating tubal flushing with oil-based contrast in the initial fertility work-up results to a reduced time to conception leading to live birth when compared to delayed tubal flushing that is performed six months after the initial fertility work-up. We also aim to evaluate the effectiveness of tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography versus no tubal flushing in the first six months of the study. METHODS: This study will be an investigator-initiated, open-label, international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a planned economic analysis alongside the study. Infertile women between 18 and 39 years of age, who have an ovulatory cycle, who are at low risk for tubal pathology and have been advised expectant management for at least six months (based on the Hunault prediction score) will be included in this study. Eligible women will be randomly allocated (1:1) to immediate tubal flushing (intervention) versus delayed tubal flushing (control group) by using web-based block randomization stratified per study center. The primary outcome is time to conception leading to live birth with conception within twelve months after randomization. We assess the cumulative conception rate at six and twelve months as two co-primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include ongoing pregnancy rate, live birth rate, miscarriage rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, number of complications, procedural pain score and cost-effectiveness. To demonstrate or refute a shorter time to pregnancy of three months with a power of 90%, a sample size of 554 women is calculated. DISCUSSION: The H2Oil-timing study will provide insight into whether tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography should be incorporated in the initial fertility work-up in women with unexplained infertility as a therapeutic procedure. If this multicenter RCT shows that tubal flushing with oil-based contrast incorporated in the initial fertility work-up reduces time to conception and is a cost-effective strategy, the results may lead to adjustments of (inter)national guidelines and change clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was retrospectively registered in International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (Main ID: EUCTR2018-004153-24-NL).

Is Hysterosalpingo-Contrast Sonography (HyCoSy) Using Sulfur Hexafluoride Microbubbles (SonoVue) Sufficient for the Assessment of Fallopian Tube Patency? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of HyCoSy using sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles for fallopian tubal patency assessment in infertile females. Twenty-four studies, including 1358 females with 2661 detected fallopian tubes published from January 2003 to May 2019, were identified. The pooled sensitivity was 93% (95% CI: 90-95%), while the specificity was 90% (95% CI: 87-92%). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.96 (95% CI: 94-98%). The specificity of the four-dimensional HyCoSy subgroup was higher than the 2D/3D subgroup; an increased dose of contrast agent did not affect the specificity, with only a slightly reduced sensitivity.

Impact of tubal patency test selection on the live birth rate following intrauterine insemination in couples with unexplained infertility: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: We planned a study to evaluate the impact of selecting hysterosalpingography (HSG) over diagnostic laparoscopy during initial fertility evaluation on IUI treatment outcomes in couples diagnosed with unexplained infertility. METHODS: The study comprised a retrospective cohort and included couples evaluated for infertility at our tertiary level hospital between January 2008 and December 2019. Couples diagnosed with unexplained infertility based on tubal patency tests (either HSG or diagnostic laparoscopy) were included. We compared outcomes following ovarian stimulation (OS) and intrauterine insemination (IUI) between women who underwent HSG versus laparoscopy for up to three treatment cycles. RESULTS: A total of 7413 women were screened, out of which 1002 women were diagnosed with unexplained infertility. We did not find a significant statistical difference in the clinical pregnancy (16.7% vs. 11.7%; OR (odds ratio) 1.51; 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.90-2.5) or live birth rate per IUI cycle (15.1% vs. 10.7%; OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.9-2.6) in women who underwent HSG for tubal evaluation as compared to laparoscopy. After adjustment for potential confounders through multivariate analysis, we found that outcomes were comparable between the HSG and laparoscopy. CONCLUSION: The current study did not find any significant difference in treatment outcomes following OS and IUI in women with unexplained infertility who underwent HSG compared to laparoscopy for the assessment of the tubal patency during the initial fertility workup. The finding suggests minimal or no impact of selecting HSG over diagnostic laparoscopy as a tubal patency test on the subsequent IUI outcomes.

Prognostic value of hysterosalpingography after salpingostomy in patients with hydrosalpinx.

To assess whether post-hysterosalpingography evaluation was associated with pregnancy rate and to identify independent risk factors for pregnancy success after salpingostomy in patients with hydrosalpinx. A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 47 patients diagnosed with hydrosalpingography (HSG) in our hospital from 2015 to 2018. These patients received laparoscopic surgery and another salpingography within 2 months after surgery. According to the fallopian tube conditions evaluated by HSG before and after surgery, the patients could be divided into two groups. According to the pregnancy rate and postoperative HSG of patients with hydrosalpinx after laparoscopy, the total pregnancy rate of the tubal improved group was 65.62%, while that of the non-improved group was 20%, with statistical significance (p < 0.05). We found that hysterosalpingography after salpingostomy in patients with hydrosalpinx can provide reference for clinical treatment and improve the prognosis of patients.

Postoperative HSG improvement was an independent risk factor for pregnancy rate in patients with hydrosalpinx after laparoscopic surgery. Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Fallopian tube obstruction is an important cause of female infertility. Current studies have shown that most spontaneous pregnancies in patients with hydrosalpinx after salpingostomy occur within 18 months, however, pregnancy rates and outcomes vary from report to report.What do the results of this study add? Many studies have shown that hydrosalpinx reduces the success rate of natural pregnancy and embryo transfer, but the mechanism of hydrosalpinx affecting pregnancy remains unclear. This study explored the mechanism of successful pregnancy through hysterosalpingography after salpingostomy in patients with hydrosalpinx.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? To evaluate the prognosis of patients with hydrosalpinx after laparoscopic salpingostomy by hysterosalpingography (HSG), and to reflect the improvement according to the postoperative pregnancy rate of the patients. To provide clinical personalized treatment plan.

When a balloon catheter or tenaculum is required for cervical traction during hysterosalpingography.

The aim of this study was to define the actual rate of the traction needed and the balloon catheter or tenaculum requirement for hysterosalpingography (HSG) examinations, and to investigate the correlation between pain scores with the type of traction, operator, parity or the type of infertility. 788 patients undergoing HSG participated in the trial. The HSG examinations were completed in 58% of the patients (458) without any traction. Traction was needed in 42% of patients, those with the balloon catheter in 26.9%, and those with the tenaculum only at 15%. Patients with balloon catheter traction had similar pain scores to those using tenaculum traction. The pain scores changed according to the operator. HSG examinations should be performed step-by-step and the need for traction evaluated during the procedure.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? HSG is a technique to evaluate fallopian tube patency and other potential intrauterine pathology in infertile women.What do the results of this study add? Traction was not needed in more than half of the HSG examinations. The pain due to the balloon catheter and tenaculum is similar.What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? HSG examinations should be performed step-by-step by checking the need for traction. Traction with the balloon catheter prevents the uterine spasm, infection and bleeding complications during or after the HSG.

The cost-effectiveness of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy versus hysterosalpingography in the work-up for subfertility.

STUDY QUESTION: Is a strategy starting with transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with hysterosalpingography (HSG) in the work-up for subfertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: A strategy starting with THL is cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with HSG in the work-up for subfertile women. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Tubal pathology is a common cause of subfertility and tubal patency testing is one of the cornerstones of the fertility work-up. Both THL and HSG are safe procedures and can be used as a first-line tubal patency test. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This economic evaluation was performed alongside a randomized clinical trial comparing THL and HSG in 300 subfertile women, between May 2013 and October 2016. For comparisons of THL and HSG, the unit costs were split into three main categories: costs of the diagnostic procedure, costs of fertility treatments and the costs for pregnancy outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Subfertile women scheduled for tubal patency testing were eligible. Women were randomized to a strategy starting with THL or a strategy starting with HSG. The primary outcome of the study was conception leading to a live birth within 24 months after randomization. The mean costs and outcomes for each treatment group were compared. We used a non-parametric bootstrap resampling of 1000 re-samples to investigate the effect of uncertainty and we created a cost-effectiveness plane and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We allocated 149 women to THL and 151 to HSG, and we were able to achieve complete follow-up of 142 versus 148 women, respectively. After the fertility work-up women were treated according to the Dutch guidelines and based on a previously published prognostic model. In the THL group, 83 women (58.4%) conceived a live born child within 24 months after randomization compared to 82 women (55.4%) in the HSG group (difference 3.0% (95% CI: -8.3 to 14.4)). The mean total costs per woman were lower in the THL group compared to the HSG group (THL group €4991 versus €5262 in the HSG group, mean cost difference = -€271 (95% CI -€273 to -€269)). Although the costs of only the diagnostic procedure were higher in the THL group, in the HSG group more women underwent diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopies and also had higher costs for fertility treatments. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our trial was conducted in women with a low risk of tubal pathology; therefore, the results of our study are not generalizable to women with high risk of tubal pathology. Furthermore, this economic analysis was based on the Dutch healthcare system, and possibly our results are not generalizable to countries with different strategies or costs for fertility treatments. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: After 2 years of follow-up, we found a live birth rate of 58.4% in the THL group versus 55.4% in the HSG group and a lower mean cost per woman in the THL group, with a cost difference of -€271. The findings of our trial suggest that a strategy starting with THL is cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with HSG in the workup for subfertile women. However, the cost difference between the two diagnostic strategies is limited compared to the total cost per woman in our study and before implementing THL as a first-line strategy for tubal patency testing, more research in other fields, such as patient preference and acceptance, is necessary. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The authors received no external financial support for the research. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA, Guerbet. B.W.J.M. reports receiving travel support from Merck KGaA. C.T.P. reports consultancy for Guerbet, outside of this manuscript. All other authors have no conflicts to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR3462.

Can hysterosalpingo-foam sonography replace hysterosalpingography as first-choice tubal patency test? A randomized non-inferiority trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) lead to similar pregnancy outcomes, compared with hysterosalpingography (HSG), as first-choice tubal patency test in infertile couples? SUMMARY ANSWER: HyFoSy and HSG produce similar findings in a majority of patients and clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG, leads to comparable pregnancy outcomes. HyFoSy is experienced as significantly less painful. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during fertility work-up is performed by HSG. HyFoSy is an alternative imaging technique lacking ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast medium exposure which is less expensive than HSG. Globally, there is a shift towards the use of office-based diagnostic methods, such as HyFoSy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This multicentre, prospective, comparative study with a randomized design was conducted in 26 hospitals in The Netherlands. Participating women underwent both HyFoSy and HSG in randomized order. In case of discordant results, women were randomly allocated to either a management strategy based on HyFoSy or one based on HSG. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included infertile women between 18 and 41 years old who were scheduled for tubal patency testing during their fertility work-up. Women with anovulatory cycles not responding to ovulation induction, endometriosis, severe male infertility or a known iodine contrast allergy were excluded. The primary outcome for the comparison of the HyFoSy- and HSG-based strategies was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth within 12 months after inclusion in an intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 women underwent HyFoSy and HSG. HyFoSy was inconclusive in 97 of them (9.5%), HSG was inconclusive in 30 (2.9%) and both were inconclusive in 9 (0.9%). In 747 women (73%) conclusive tests results were concordant. Of the 143/1026 (14%) with discordant results, 105 were randomized to clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG. In this group, 22 of the 54 women (41%) allocated to management based on HyFoSy and 25 of 51 women (49%) allocated to management based on HSG had an ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth (Difference -8%; 95% CI: -27% to 10%). In total, clinical management based on the results of HyFoSy was estimated to lead to a live birth in 474 of 1026 women (46%) versus 486 of 1026 (47%) for management based on HSG (Difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). Given the pre-defined margin of -2%, statistically significant non-inferiority of HyFoSy relative to HSG could not be demonstrated (P = 0.27). The mean pain score for HyFoSy on the 1-10 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was 3.1 (SD 2.2) and the mean VAS pain score for HSG was 5.4 (SD 2.5; P for difference < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Since all women underwent both tubal patency tests, no conclusions on a direct therapeutic effect of tubal flushing could be drawn. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: HyFoSy or HSG produce similar tubal pathology findings in a majority of infertile couples and, where they differ, a difference in findings does not lead to substantial difference in pregnancy outcome, while HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study funded by ZonMw, The Netherlands organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). ZonMw funded the whole project. IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm-foam® kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, and a research support grant from Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. C.B.L. reports speakers' fee from Ferring in the past, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.V.W. reports leading The Netherlands Satellite of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Guerbet and research funding from Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports non-financial support from IQ medicals ventures, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4746/NL4587 (https://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 August 2014. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 7 May 2015.

Hysterosalpingography is obsolete: hysterosalpingo-contrast foam sonography should be the alternative.

Current evidence suggests that the hysterosalpingo-foam sonography test (HyFoSy) has emerged as a new option to make Fallopian tube assessment easier. Several published studies have compared the different types of tubal patency test available with the accepted gold standard, laparoscopy and dye, endorsing the advantages of HyFoSy over the other techniques. However, the authors wonder why professionals nowadays do not indicate HyFoSy as a first-choice diagnostic tool, with X-ray hysterosalpingography as still the most recommended procedure in outpatients. The aim of this article is to highlight the latest updates on this topic in order to raise awareness of the benefits of hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography as well as provide some tips for performing HyFoSy to obtain the maximum information in a single consultation.

Is hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) more tolerable in terms of pain and anxiety than hysterosalpingography (HSG)? A prospective real-world setting multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: In 60% of sterile couples a female factor is present, with these being tubal factors in 30-50% of cases. A tubal patency test is also required in women without a male partner undergoing fertility treatment. Thus, an accurate, safe and tolerable technique should be available. The aim of this study is to determine and to compare hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) and hysterosalpingography (HSG) tolerability in terms of pain and anxiety. METHODS: This is a prospective real-world setting multicentre study conducted in two tertiary hospitals in Madrid. 210 infertile women/women without a male partner looking to get pregnant were recruited; 111 for the HyFoSy group and 99 for the HSG group. Tolerability was measured in terms of anxiety by the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and pain by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: Median VAS score in HyFoSy group was 2 (P25; P75: 1; 3) versus 5 (4; 8) in HSG group, p < 0.001. The median State-STAI score in the HSG group was 18 points (10; 26) versus 10 (7; 16) in the HyFoSy group (p < 0.001); the median Trait-STAI score in the HSG group was 15 (11; 21) versus 13 (9; 17) in the HyFoSy group (p = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: HyFoSy shows higher tolerability to both: pain and anxiety. It is related to less pain and less post-test anxiety than HSG.

Oil-based versus water-based contrast media for hysterosalpingography in infertile women of advanced age, with ovulation disorders or a high risk for tubal pathology: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (H2Oil2 study).

BACKGROUND: In women with unexplained infertility, tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography (HSG) increases ongoing pregnancy and subsequent live birth rates when compared to tubal flushing with water-based contrast. It is currently unclear whether an HSG with oil-based contrast also results in more ongoing pregnancies and live births in women of advanced age, women with ovulation disorders, and women with potential tubal pathology when compared to an HSG with water-based contrast. METHODS: We plan an international, multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT) studying three groups of infertile women who have an indication for tubal patency testing according to their treating physician and additionally; (1) are 39 years of age or older, (2) have an ovulation disorder or (3) have a high risk for tubal pathology based on their medical history. Women with an allergy for iodinated contrast medium are excluded, as are women with diabetes, hyperprolactinemia or untreated hyper- or hypothyroidism, and women with a partner with severe male infertility. After informed consent, women will be randomly allocated to the intervention, tubal flushing with the use of oil-based contrast during HSG or the control group, tubal flushing with the use of water-based contrast during HSG in a 1:1 ratio by the web-based system Castor. The primary endpoint will be ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth with conception within six months after randomization. Secondary outcomes are other pregnancy outcomes, used fertility treatments, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. Based on the expected ongoing pregnancy rate of 17% in the control group and 27% in the intervention group, the sample size will be 930 women (465 per group). Study inclusion is expected to be complete in four years. DISCUSSION: This multicentre RCT will establish whether, for women of advanced age, women with ovulatory disease, and women who have a high risk for tubal pathology, there is a fertility enhancing effect of tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG and whether the use of this contrast medium is cost-effective. Trial Registration The study was prospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register on August 1st 2019 as 'H2Oil2' (reference number NL7925, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7925 ).

Mother's iodine exposure and infants' hypothyroidism: the Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS).

In this study, we aimed to determine the association of neonatal/post-neonatal hypothyroidism with mother's iodine exposure, especially povidone iodine disinfection, and hysterosalpingography. Participants were mother-child pairs in a Japanese birth cohort (n = 100,286). Risk factors of hypothyroidism were supplement intake, seaweed intake, other daily iodine intake, povidone iodine disinfection at delivery, and maternal history of hysterosalpingography, thyroid disease (Graves' disease and Hashimoto's thyroiditis), and medication (thiamazole and levothyroxine). Congenital hypothyroidism (CH) at age 1 year was assessed using a questionnaire. Transient hypothyroidism was defined as elevated thyroid stimulating hormone level at birth and absence of CH at age 1 year. The incidence of CH at age 1 year per 100 children was 1.1 for those born at 22-30 weeks' gestation, 0.17 following povidone iodine disinfection, and 0.07, 0.95, 0.81, 1.17, and 1.15 with a maternal history of hysterosalpingography, Graves' disease, Hashimoto's thyroiditis, thiamazole use, and levothyroxine use, respectively. Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of CH at age 1 year for povidone iodine disinfection, hysterosalpingography history, maternal Graves' disease, and maternal Hashimoto's thyroiditis were 1.13 (0.71-1.79), 0.47 (0.07-3.36), 7.06 (3.70-13.5), and 5.93 (2.90-12.1), respectively. For transient hypothyroidism for povidone iodine disinfection and hysterosalpingography history, these values were 1.99 (1.51-2.62) and 0.63 (0.20-1.96), respectively. Maternal thyroid disease greatly increased neonatal/post-neonatal hypothyroidism risk. Povidone iodine disinfection may increase transient hypothyroidism risk but not the risk at 1 year of age. Hysterosalpingography does not increase hypothyroidism risk from birth to age 1 year.

Comparison between X-ray-hysterosalpingography and 3 Tesla magnetic resonance-hysterosalpingography in the assessment of the tubal patency in the cause of female infertility.

OBJECTIVES: XR-hysterosalpingography currently represents the gold standard for tubal pathology evaluation. Magnetic resonance-HSG is an innovative technique. With our study, we aim to comprehend if and how MR-HSG, compared to traditional XR-HSG, could give us this additional information in the diagnostic/therapeutic process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 19 patients between 30 and 42 years old (average age 37.7) affected by infertility. Patients underwent contextually both XR-HSG and MR-HSG, using a single catheterization. The dynamic MR-HSG exam consisted a MR sequence during contrast administration through the cervical catheter. RESULTS: Both XR-HSG and MR-HSG documented that 15 of the 19 patients had bilateral tubal patency, while four patients had monolateral tubal patency. However, MR-HSG allowed us to diagnose additional findings: Two active endometriosis foci in adnexal localization and a condition of adenomyosis A unicornuate uterus malformation A submucous uterine myoma near the tubal ostium A decrease of the ovarian reserve in a patient So MR-HSG could potentially detect in 10/19 (52%) women the cause of their infertility, compared to 4/19 (21%) detected with XR-HSG and about 30% of women would have resulted as false negatives if we only used XR-HSG. Finally, with a questionnaire, we demonstrated that MR-HSG is less painful than XR-HSG. CONCLUSIONS: These data thus confirm that XR-HSG and MR-HSG present the same diagnostic of assessing tubal patency. We also demonstrated that MR-HSG is able to detect further collateral findings that could likewise be a possible therapeutic target and it could possibly become the new gold standard in female infertility diagnostics.