الفهرس | Only 14 pages are availabe for public view |
Abstract Our study involved 50 cases of primary and secondary infertility, one year or more. These patients were subjected to the following tests : l) Complete history, general and pelvic examiantions. 2) Premenstrual ouvlation. 3) Hysterosalpingography. 4) Lap a r o e c op u , endometrial biopsy to check The aim of our study was to compare the diagnostic value of HSG and laparoscopy in the invistigation of the infertile woman. The results of paired HSG and laparoscopy were eval. uat ed and it was found that: l/ Regarding tubal patency and the site of tubal block, there was complete agreement between HSG and Laparoscopy in 37 patients (74%), and disagreement in l3 patients (26%). Laparoscopy was not superior to HSG in this respect, as the difference between the two methods was statistically insignificant (P~0.05). -103- ~/ Regarding pe~vic adhesions ~aparoscopy was superior, diagnosing pe~vic adhesions in ~6 cases (32%), whi~e on~y 6 (~2%) were suspected at HSG. The difference is statistica~~y significant (PC::::O. oi i . ~/ Laparoscopy allowed visualization of the ovaries in al~ cases, and in our group, it yielded a high rate of ovarian abnormaZitis (40%), including ovarian cysts, cystic ovaries and periovarian adhesions. i/ Both procedures were eeeen t-iaL for correct assessment of the uterus (cavity and surface) Of the infertile woman. ~/ Pelvic endometriosis can on~y be diagnosed at laparoscopy. In our series however, on~y one case was found. n We conc~uded that HSG and laparoscopy are complementary to each other,and that both procedures should be used in the invistigation Of the infertile fema le to reach a fairly accurate diagnosis ..n A.t.thoagh nowday~ contact hy~te~o~copy can ~ep.(aceHSG, and pe£~v~c ~onog~aphy can ~ep£ace .tap~o~copy ~n the~e pat~ent~.n |