Vol 91, No 11 (2020)
Research paper
Published online: 2020-10-07

open access

Page views 835
Article views/downloads 808
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

A prospective self-controlled study on shortening the time before taking delayed radiographs with iodized oil hysterosalpingography

Jingyuan Lu1, Dan Qi2, Yang Liu3, Yi Fan2
Pubmed: 33301158
Ginekol Pol 2020;91(11):655-660.


Objectives: To verify the feasibility of walking to shorten the time before obtaining delayed radiographs after iodized oil hysterosalpingography (HSG). Material and methods: One hundred women with infertility were selected for HSG from June 2018 to December 2018 at the Women’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University; the subjects were randomly divided into walking and control groups. The walking group was required to walk more than 12,000 steps within 6 hours after HSG, while the control group was prohibited from performing high-intensity exercise. The degree of pelvic adhesion was diagnosed with delayed radiographs acquired at 6 and 24 hours, and the diagnostic consistency of the radiographs at the two time points was evaluated. Results: No significant difference was observed in the baseline data between groups (p > 0.05). The delayed radiograph results in the walking group showed good agreement (p = 0.255 > 0.05, Kappa value 0.781 > 0.75), while those in the control group showed general agreement (p = 0.002 < 0.05, Kappa value 0.493 > 0.40 < 0.75). Conclusions: The time for acquiring delayed radiographs can be shortened by instructing patients to walk after HSG. This method improves the diagnostic efficiency of Iodized oil, saves time and costs, and may contribute to the popularization of HSG for female infertility screening, while offering good clinical application prospects.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Dreyer K, van Rijswijk J, Mijatovic V, et al. Oil-Based or Water-Based Contrast for Hysterosalpingography in Infertile Women. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(21): 2043–2052.
  2. Aghajanova L, Hoffman J, Mok-Lin E, et al. Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency and Fertility Needs. Reprod Sci. 2017; 24(3): 428–434.
  3. Zhou Z, Zheng D, Wu H, et al. Epidemiology of infertility in China: a population-based study. BJOG. 2018; 125(4): 432–441.
  4. Aketayeva A, Khamidullina Z, Akhmetova Z, et al. Diagnosis and Treatment of Female Infertility Is One of the Major Problems in Modern Gynecology. Iran J Public Health. 2018; 47(1): 135–137.
  5. Chua SuJ, Akande VA, Mol BW. Surgery for tubal infertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 1: CD006415.
  6. Szafarowska M, Jerzak M. [Ovarian aging and infertility]. Ginekol Pol. 2013; 84(4): 298–304.
  7. Ait Benkaddour Y, Gervaise A, Fernandez H. [Which is the method of choice for evaluating uterine cavity in infertility workup?]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2010; 39(8): 606–613.
  8. Tang LS, Xu J, Tang HY. Correlations of abnormal ultrasound audio-visual images of ovarian cortex surface and pelvic adhesion in infertile patients. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2014;41(2):160-162, doi: 10. 12891/ceog15932014, indexed in Pubmed. ; 24779243.
  9. Tobler KJ, Shoham G, Christianson MS, et al. Use of anti-mullerian hormone for testing ovarian reserve: a survey of 796 infertility clinics worldwide. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015; 32(10): 1441–1448.
  10. Zhang E, Zhang Y, Fang Li, et al. Combined hysterolaparoscopy for the diagnosis of female infertility: a retrospective study of 132 patients in china. Mater Sociomed. 2014; 26(3): 156–157.
  11. Steinkeler JA, Woodfield CA, Lazarus E, et al. Female infertility: a systematic approach to radiologic imaging and diagnosis. Radiographics. 2009; 29(5): 1353–1370.
  12. Hong Q, Cai R, Chen Q, et al. Three-Dimensional HyCoSy With Perfluoropropane-Albumin Microspheres as Contrast Agents and Normal Saline Injections Into the Pelvic Cavity for Morphological Assessment of the Fallopian Tube in Infertile Women. J Ultrasound Med. 2017; 36(4): 741–748.
  13. Cipolla V, Guerrieri D, Pietrangeli D, et al. Role of 3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography in the diagnostic work-up of female infertility. Acta Radiol. 2016; 57(9): 1132–1139.
  14. Ledbetter KA, Shetty M, Myers DT. Hysterosalpingography: an imaging Atlas with cross-sectional correlation. Abdom Imaging. 2015; 40(6): 1721–1732.
  15. Yun AJ, Lee PY. Enhanced fertility after diagnostic hysterosalpingography using oil-based contrast agents may be attributable to immunomodulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004; 183(6): 1725–1727.
  16. Imudia AN, Kumar S, Saed GM, et al. Pathogenesis of Intra-abdominal and pelvic adhesion development. Semin Reprod Med. 2008; 26(4): 289–297.
  17. Hou HY, Chen YQ, Chen X, et al. Related factors associated with pelvic adhesion and its influence on fallopian tube recanalization in infertile patients. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2012;47(11):823-828. .
  18. Olawale BB, Ademola AO, Gbadebo AG. Tubal abnormalities in patients with intrauterine adhesion: evaluation using hysterosalpingography. Ann Afr Med. 2014; 13(4): 179–183.
  19. Tan Y, Zheng S, Lei W, et al. Ethiodized poppyseed oil versus ioversol for image quality and adverse events in hysterosalpingography: a prospective cohort study. BMC Med Imaging. 2019; 19(1): 50.
  20. Lu C, Li L, Luo Z, et al. Clinical efficacy of type-B ultrasound-guided intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemoperfusion combined with systemic chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer patients with malignant ascites. Neoplasma. 2016; 63(2): 299–303.