Hysterosalpingographic findings in primary and secondary infertility patients

References

1. 1. Zegers-Hochschild F,
   2. Adamson GD,
   3. Dyer S,
   4. Racowsky C,
   5. de Mouzon J,
   6. Sokol R,
   7. et al.

   (2017) The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care 2017. Fertil Steril 108:393–406.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
2. 1. Al-Turki HA,
   2. Gullenpet AH,
   3. Syed A,
   4. Al-Saif HS,
   5. Aldhafery BF

   (2016) Uterine and tubal abnormalities in infertile Saudi Arabian women:A teaching hospital experience. Saudi J Med Med Sci 4:89–92.

   OpenUrl
3. 1. Onwuchekwa CR,
   2. Oriji VK

   (2017) Hysterosalpingographic (HSG) Pattern of Infertility in Women of Reproductive Age. J Hum Reprod Sci 10:178–184.

   OpenUrl
4. 1. Jitchanwichai A,
   2. Soonthornpun K

   (2019) Effect of premedication hyoscine-n-butylbromide before hysterosalpingography for diagnosis of proximal tubal obstruction in infertile women:A randomized double-blind controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 26:110–116.

   OpenUrl
5. 1. Lopes VM,
   2. Barguil JP,
   3. Lacerda TS,
   4. Souza AL,
   5. Rocha Filho AM,
   6. Roller MF,
   7. et al.

   (2017) An overview of the results of hysterosonography prior to in vitro fertilization. JBRA Assist Reprod 21:302–305.

   OpenUrl
6. 1. Martí-Bonmatí L

   (2018) Hysterosalpingography and fertility:a technical relationship. Fertil Steril 110:642.

   OpenUrlPubMed
7. 1. Maheux-Lacroix S,
   2. Bergeron C,
   3. Moore L,
   4. Bergeron MÈ,
   5. Lefebvre J,
   6. Grenier-Ouellette I,
   7. et al.

   (2019) Hysterosalpingosonography is not as effective as hysterosalpingography to increase chances of pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 41:593–598.

   OpenUrl
8. 1. Wadhwa L,
   2. Rani P,
   3. Bhatia P

   (2017) Comparative prospective study of hysterosalpingography and hysteroscopy in infertile women. J Hum Reprod Sci 10:73–78.

   OpenUrl
9. 1. Fang F,
   2. Bai Y,
   3. Zhang Y,
   4. Faramand A

   (2018) Oil-based versus water-based contrast for hysterosalpingography in infertile women:a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril 110:153–160.e3.

   OpenUrlPubMed
10. 1. Dreyer K,
    2. van Eekelen R,
    3. Tjon-Kon-Fat RI,
    4. van der Steeg JW,
    5. Steures P,
    6. Eijkemans M,
    7. et al.

    (2019) The therapeutic effect of hysterosalpingography in couples with unexplained subfertility:a post-hoc analysis of a prospective multi-centre cohort study. Reprod Biomed Online 38:233–239.

    OpenUrl
11. 1. Fukunaga T,
    2. Fujii S,
    3. Inoue C,
    4. Mukuda N,
    5. Murakami A,
    6. Tanabe Y,
    7. et al.

    (2017) The spectrum of imaging appearances of müllerian duct anomalies:focus on MR imaging. Jpn J Radiol 35:697–706.

    OpenUrl
12. 1. Rikken JF,
    2. Kowalik CR,
    3. Emanuel MH,
    4. Mol BW,
    5. Van der Veen F,
    6. van Wely M,
    7. et al.

    (2017) Septum resection for women of reproductive age with a septate uterus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD008576.

    OpenUrl
13. 1. Ludwin A,
    2. Martins WP,
    3. Nastri CO,
    4. Ludwin I,
    5. Coelho Neto MA,
    6. Leitão VM,
    7. et al.

    (2018) Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts (CUME):better criteria for distinguishing between normal/arcuate and septate uterus? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 51:101–109.

    OpenUrl
14. 1. Volondat M,
    2. Fontas E,
    3. Delotte J,
    4. Fatfouta I,
    5. Chevallier P,
    6. Chassang M

    (2019) Magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography in diagnostic work-up of female infertility - comparison with conventional hysterosalpingography:a randomised study. Eur Radiol 29:501–508.

    OpenUrl
15. 1. Bhatt S,
    2. Sumbul M,
    3. Rajpal R,
    4. Radhakrishnan G

    (2017) Value of “Three Dimensional Multidetector CT Hysterosalpingography“in infertile patients with non-contributory hysterosalpingography:A prospective study. J Reprod Infertil 18:323–32.

    OpenUrl