Objectives: Hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy both are the diagnostic methods for assessment of female infertility. The present study was to compare the evaluation of hysterosalpingography (HSG) versus laparoscopy in determination of tubal factors in female infertility.
Methods: Detailed assessment, physical examination and clinical investigations were performed in all 100 infertile female with age 20 years to 40 years. All patients were advised to perform digital HSG. Patients with an abnormal HSG underwent laparoscopy without delay, whereas in patients with a normal HSG, laparoscopy was performed three months after HSG. HSG is best scheduled during the 2nd -5th day interval immediately following the end of menstruation, to minimize risk for infection, avoid interference from intrauterine blood and clot, and to prevent any possibility that the procedure might be performed after conception.
Results: Data was analysed by using IBM SPSS version 23 software. All data was tabulated and percentages were calculated. Mean ± standard deviation was observed.
Conclusions: Diagnostic laparoscopy is the gold standard in diagnosing tubal pathology and other intra-abdominal causes of infertility. Other hand, Hysterosalpingography is a frequently utilized diagnostic tool in the assessment of tubal status and detection of uterine anatomical defects in infertility. Hysterosalpingography and laparoscopy are not alternatives but complimentary investigations. But, inadequacy of hysterosalpingography (HSG) in determining the state of tubal patency, emphasizes the need for laparoscopy. Laparoscopy provides both a panoramic view of the pelvic reproductive anatomy and a magnified view of pelvic organs and peritoneal surfaces.
Keywords: Female infertility, Tubal patency, HSG, Laparoscopy