Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jan 3;14(1):540-547.
doi: 10.21037/qims-23-816. Epub 2024 Jan 2.

Sequential-contingent strategy for fallopian tube evaluation using hysterosalpingo foam sonography: a cost analysis

Alberto Armijo-Sánchez  1   2   3 , Esther Santamaría-López  2   3 , Manuel Fernández-Sánchez  2   3   4   5 , Noelia Galiano-Gutiérrez  2   3 , Elena Mantrana-Bermejo  1   2   3
Affiliations

Sequential-contingent strategy for fallopian tube evaluation using hysterosalpingo foam sonography: a cost analysis

Alberto Armijo-Sánchez et al. Quant Imaging Med Surg. .

Abstract

Background: Tubal pathology is the etiological factor in 20% of couples with female infertility. Historically, diagnostic evaluation of the fallopian tubes has been performed by means of hysterosalpingography (HSG). Hysterosonosalpingography with EXEM® foam is a recent technique with supposedly comparable effectiveness to HSG, but with better tolerability for patients.

Methods: Tubal patency was assessed in patients who were candidates for intrauterine insemination (IUI) between January 2020 and July 2021. (I) Hysterosonosalpingography with EXEM® foam. (II) If the patient had both tubes patent, IUI was proposed. In case of inconclusive or pathological results, HSG was performed. (III) If the HSG concludes tubal patency, IUI is proposed. On the other hand, if it results in tubal obstruction, in vitro fertilization (IVF) is proposed.

Results: Assessment of tubal patency by HSG showed concordance with previous Hysterosonosalpingography with EXEM® foam results in 45.5% (n=15) of cases of unilateral obstruction and 66.7% (n=6) of cases of bilateral obstruction. When we compare the total cost of HSG (€54,899.46) with the sum of patients who only required Hysterosonosalpingography with EXEM® foam together with those who underwent both tests (€45,575.96), it shows that the latter represents a cost benefit strategy (cost difference €9,323.50).

Conclusions: Our results suggest a benefit of €9,323.50 when performing the contingent sequential strategy, in case of pathological or inconclusive results, compared to performing a systematic HSG in all patients. Patients with an obstructive hysterosalpingogram with EXEM® and a patent hysterosalpingogram will be the subgroup that will benefit the most, as IUI can be proposed instead of IVF. In addition, there is a benefit in terms of optimizing the medical procedure, hospital visits and speeding up the time to start assisted reproductive technology (ART).

Keywords: Tubal patency; cost analysis; hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy); hysterosalpingography (HSG); hysterosonosalpingography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://qims.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/qims-23-816/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of eligible treatment. HyFoSy, hysterosalpingo-foam sonography; HSG, hysterosalpingography.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cost according to the strategy chosen. HSG, hysterosalpingography; HyFoSy, hysterosalpingo-foam sonography.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hoenderboom BM, van Benthem BHB, van Bergen JEAM, Dukers-Muijrers NHTM, Götz HM, Hoebe CJPA, Hogewoning AA, Land JA, van der Sande MAB, Morré SA, van den Broek IVF. Relation between Chlamydia trachomatis infection and pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy and tubal factor infertility in a Dutch cohort of women previously tested for chlamydia in a chlamydia screening trial. Sex Transm Infect 2019;95:300-6. 10.1136/sextrans-2018-053778 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Engels V, Medina M, Antolín E, Ros C, Amaro A, De-Guirior C, Manzour N, Sotillo L, De la Cuesta R, Rodríguez R, San-Frutos L, Peralta S, Martin-Martínez A, Alcázar JL. Feasibility, tolerability, and safety of hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (hyfosy). multicenter, prospective Spanish study. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2021;50:102004. 10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.102004 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rajesh H, Lim SL, Yu SL. Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography: patient selection and perspectives. Int J Womens Health 2017;9:23-32. 10.2147/IJWH.S123710 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ramos J, Caligara C, Santamaría-López E, González-Ravina C, Prados N, Carranza F, Blasco V, Fernández-Sánchez M. Diagnostic Accuracy Study Comparing Hysterosalpingo-Foam Sonography and Hysterosalpingography for Fallopian Tube Patency Assessment. J Clin Med 2021;10:4169. 10.3390/jcm10184169 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ramos J, Pellicer N, Fernández-Sánchez M. Hysterosalpingography is obsolete: hysterosalpingo-contrast foam sonography should be the alternative. Reprod Biomed Online 2022;45:839-42. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.05.021 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources