Analysis of the value of transvaginal four-dimensional ultrasound hysterosalpingography in infertility assessment
10.3760/cma.j.cn341190-20240717-00921
- VernacularTitle:经阴道四维超声子宫输卵管造影检查对不孕症的评估价值分析
- Author:
Xiao YU
1
;
Xiaoli GE
1
Author Information
1. 金华市中心医院超声医学科，金华 321000
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Infertility, female;
Endosonography;
Hysterosalpingography;
Diagnostic techniques, obstetrical and gynecological;
Sensitivity and specificity
- From:
Chinese Journal of Primary Medicine and Pharmacy
2025;32(4):513-516
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the value of transvaginal four-dimensional ultrasound hysterosalpingography for infertility assessment.Methods:A retrospective study was conducted involving 160 patients with infertility who were treated at Jinhua Municipal Central Hospital from March 2020 to December 2023. The patients were divided into two groups based on the examination method used: the traditional hysterosalpingography group and the four-dimensional ultrasound hysterosalpingography group, with 80 cases in each group. The accuracy of the two methods in assessing infertility, along with their sensitivity and specificity, was compared. Additionally, the effectiveness of these methods in evaluating tubal patency and the incidence of adverse reactions was also examined.Results:The accuracy of four-dimensional ultrasound hysterosalpingography in assessing infertility was significantly higher than that of the traditional hysterosalpingography [95.00%(76/80) vs. 85.00% (68/80), χ2 = 4.44, P < 0.05]. The sensitivity of four-dimensional ultrasound hysterosalpingography in assessing infertility was 95.00% (76/80) and the specificity was 80.00% (64/80), both of which were higher than those for the traditional hysterosalpingography group, which had a sensitivity of 85.00% (68/80) and a specificity of 66.67% (53/80) ( χ2 = 4.44, 6.62, both P < 0.05). The agreement rate for assessing tubal patency in the four-dimensional ultrasound hysterosalpingography group was 96.25% (77/80), which was higher than the 86.25% (69/80) in the traditional hysterosalpingography group ( χ2 = 5.01, P > 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in the four-dimensional ultrasound hysterosalpingography group was 2.50% (2/80), which was significantly lower than the 12.50% (10/80) in the traditional hysterosalpingography group ( χ2 = 5.76, P < 0.05). Conclusions:Transvaginal four-dimensional ultrasound hysterosalpingography offers significant advantages for infertility assessment, demonstrating higher accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity, along with fewer adverse reactions compared to traditional hysterosalpingography.
