|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: U/S contrast agent use for tubal patFrom: Terry J. DuBose (tjdubose@juno.com)Tue Aug 4 09:44:00 1998
Thanks, Nancy, for that response. Jim, as I recall from my radiology work back in the 70's it was thought that fertility improvement following radiographic HSG was due to the "flushing of the tubes" nature of the proceedure, not due to the agent itself. So I would assume that sonohysterography should have the same effect, reguardless of wheter a contrast or saline were used. Sorry I do not have references. "See" y'all next week. Peace, Terry J. DuBose, M.S., RDMS
-- On Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:01:22 -0500 James S Smeltzer MD <gaperina@mindspring.com> writes: >Nancy, > >Are there data to indicate an improved fertility in 3 mos after procedure? > >Jim S > >At 12:27 AM 8/4/1998 -0500, you wrote: >>I had the opportunity to be involved in the clinical trials for the use of Albunex in evaluation of fallopian tube patency.( Albunex is a human serum albumin encapsulated microbubble contrast agent distributed by Mallinckrodt) >> >>The benefit of its use over simple negative contrast (saline) is that each tube can be evaluated individually without the use of color doppler. Saline in the peritoneal cavity after instillation through the cervix indicates tubal patency but is nonspecific for individual tube. >> >>Some of the benefits of sonoHSG over radiographic HSG are as follows: >>- no ionizing radiation >>- no iodinated contrast media >>- better absorption of contrast in the peritoneum >>- increased specificity/sensitivity in endometrial cavity evaluation >>- additional info provided by sono re: myometrium; ovaries; etc. >>- can be performed anywhere that endovaginal u/s is performed. >>- greater overall acceptance by patients( in my experience...) >> >>Problem with U/S method: >>- Lack of experienced practitioners >> >>Like most new techniques, it takes some time to become accustomed to the procedure and to become comfortable with the subsequent results. >> >>Most comments in the literature and anecdotally, that I have encountered, agree that it is a good first line diagnostic procedure. I do not think that the number of HSGs is going to drop dramatically any time soon, and laparoscopy, not radiographic HSG, is still the gold standard. >> >>Dr. Anna Parsons from Tampa Fl. has been a prolific writer re: sonohysterography and sonosalpingography. Check her out if interested. >> >>Hope this helps. Feel free to contact me directly if I can be of service... >>Nancy A. Spangler, RDMS >>spnglr@aol.com >> >
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ultrasound@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: terry.dubose@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Mon Nov 2 05:39:05 2009 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.