Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

You searched for:"Rudson Carlos Martins de Oliveira"

We found (1) results for your search.
  • Original Article

    Evaluation of the uterine cavity by sonohysterography in patients with implantation failure after in vitro fertilization

    Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2003;25(7):519-523

    Summary

    Original Article

    Evaluation of the uterine cavity by sonohysterography in patients with implantation failure after in vitro fertilization

    Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2003;25(7):519-523

    DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032003000700009

    Views2

    PURPOSE: to analyze the accuracy of sonohysterography for the evaluation of the uterine cavity in patients with an implantation failure, at the first attempt of an in vitro fertilization cycle. METHODS: in a prospective double blind study, the authors analyzed patients previously submitted to at least one embryo transfer, who presented implantation failures. The patients were submitted to a sonohysterographic examination followed by a diagnostic hysteroscopic examination, carried out by different professionals each of whom was not aware of the results of the other. The results were recorded and only interpreted after the end of the trial. Sonohysterography was performed by the introduction of a urethral catheter 8 into the uterine cervix followed by infusion of physiological saline. The anechoic interface shown by the physiological saline can reveal abnormalities, like uterine polyps or submucosal myomas. Hysteroscopy was performed with a Karl Storz equipment, 4 mm 30º rigid telescope, and infusion of physiological saline for uterine cavity distention. RESULTS: twenty-eight of the 33 originally selected patients for this study were analyzed. Sonohysterography detected abnormalities in 8 patients, five with endometrial polyps (62.5%), two with endocervical polyps (25.0%), and one with submucosal myoma (12.5%). Hysteroscopy (gold standard) detected abnormalities in 7 patients, two with endometrial polyps (28.6%), two with cervical polyps (28.6%) and one with submucosal myoma (14.2%). Sonohysterography, when compared with diagnostic hysteroscopy, presented 71.4% sensibility, 85.7% specificity, 62.5% positive predictive value, and 90% negative predictive value of. CONCLUSION: due to its low positive predictive value, the authors suggest confirmation of the sonohysterography result by diagnostic hysteroscopy. Because sonohysterography presents a good level of specificity and a favorable low negative predictive value, the authors suggest that after a normal sonohysterography diagnostic hysteroscopy to evaluate the uterine cavity before in vitro fertlization is not necessary. This study leads to the conclusion that sonohysterography is a good screening method for the detection of polypoid lesions of the uterine cavity, which could be responsible for implantation failures in in vitro fertilization cycles.

    See more

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report -
correction
editorial
editorial -
letter
letter -
other -
rapid-communication
research-article
research-article -
review-article
review-article -
Section
Abstracts of Awarded Papers at the 50th Brazilian Congress of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Case Report
Case Report and Treatment
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Editorial
Editorial
Equipments and Methods
Erratum
Febrasgo Position Statement
Letter to the Editor
Methods and Techniques
Nota do Editor
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Original Articles
Previous Note
Relato de Caso
Relatos de Casos
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Teses
Review Article
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Thesis Abstract
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE