Objective To evaluate the clinical value of selective salpingography (SSG) and fallopian tube recanalization (FTR) by home made coaxial catheter. Methods 116 cases of tube obstruction were diagnosed by hysterosalpingogram (HSG). SSG was performed with home made coaxial catheter. If proximal tube complete obstruction was still present, then followed by FTR. Results 116 cases of follow up showed 55 intrauterine pregnancies (IUPS) and 6 ectopic pregnancies. IUP rate was 47.4%. 28 of 116 cases were performed by HSG again, 25 of 28 cases were improved, effective rate was 89.3%.Conclusions SSG and FTR were a safe and effective procedure for the diagnosis and treatment of tube obstruction with home made coaxial catheter.

Background: Tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis is an established surgical procedure for treating patients with end-stage ankle joint arthritis and subtalar joint arthritis. Although it greatly relives pain, a major drawback is loss of range of motion. Although it is known to restrict an additional subtalar joint compared to tibiotalar arthrodesis, there is a lack of gait analysis studies comparing the two methods. This study aimed to evaluate the differences in kinematics of the foot and ankle joints between tibiotalar and tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis. We also compared preoperative and postoperative statuses for each surgical method. Methods: The study included 12 and 9 patients who underwent tibiotalar and tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis, respectively, and 40 healthy participants were included in the control group. The DuPont foot model was used to analyze intersegmental foot and ankle kinematics during gait. Results: Compared to controls, both tibiotalar and tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis resulted in slow gait speed with reduced stride length, increased step width, and decreased range of sagittal plane motion. Both fusion methods showed similar range of motion in all segments and planes following surgery. Coronal positions showed more supination of the forefoot and pronation of the hindfoot segment after each operation, particularly tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis. Gait after tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis did not significantly differ from that after tibiotalar arthrodesis, but there was a tendency of more pronation in the hindfoot segment. Conclusions Both fusion methods limited foot and ankle motion in similar ways. Comparing tibiotalar and tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis suggests that additionally fusing the subtalar joint does not cause greater movement restriction in patients. Objectively comparing tibiotalar and tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis will facilitate further understanding of the effect of tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis on movement and the value of subtalar joint motion for improved preoperative counselling.