A comparison of pain tolerance during x-ray hysterosalpingography and sonohysterosalpingography

Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 116-119

  Session, Donna R ^a,e   Lee, Grace S ^a   Kelly, Amalia C ^a,d   Parsons, Anna K ^b   Sanders, Roger ^c   Serafini, Paulo ^d   Ler Ner, Jodi P ^d   Yee, Bill ^f   Bohm Velez, Marcela ^g   Cullinan, Jeanne ^h   Koh, Charles ⁱ   Janik, Grace ⁱ   Rabin, Douglas ^j   Gottesfeld, Ray L ^k  

^a Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^c Ultrasound Institute of Baltimore   (United States)

^d Pasadena   (United States)

^e New York Presbyterian Hospital Columbia University Medical Center   (United States)

^f University Infertility Associates   (United States)

^g WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL   (United States)

^h VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

ⁱ Reproductive Specialty Centre   (United States)

^j ADVOCATE LUTHERAN GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^k Conceptions Reproductive Associates ^*  (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Fallopian tubes; Hysterosalpingogram; Pain; Sonohysterosalpingography; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ALBUNEX; CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYSTEROSALPINGOGRAPHY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PAIN; PAIN THRESHOLD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; UTERINE TUBE DISEASE; UTERUS DISEASE; X RAY ANALYSIS;

EID: 0031050371     PISSN: 03787346     EISSN: 1423002X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000291835     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Parsons AK. Lcnsc JJ: Sonohysterography for endometrial abnormalities: Preliminary results. J Clin Ultrasound 1993:21:87-95.
2. Deichen U. Schlief R. van de Sandt M. Juhnke I: Transvaginal hysterosalpingo-contrast-sono-graphy (Hv-Co-Sy) compared with conventional tubal diagnostics. Hum Reprod 1989:4:418-424.
3. Randolph JR. Ying YK. Maier DB. Schmidt CL. Riddick DH: Comparison of real-time ultrasonography. hysterosalpingography. lapa-roscopy/hysteroscopy in the evaluation of uterine abnormalities and tubal patency. Fertil Steril 1986:46:828-832.
4. Swart P. van Beurden M. Mol BWJ. Redckop WK. van der Veen F. Bossuyt PMM: The accuracy of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology: A meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 1995:64:486-491.
5. Maroulis GB. Parsons AK. Ycko TR: Hydrogy-necography: A new technique enables vaginal sonography to visualize pelvic adhesions and other pelvic structures. Fertil Steril 1992:58: 1073-1075.
6. Price DD. Bush FM. Long S. Harkins SW: A comparison of pain measurement characteristics of mechanical visual analogue and simple numerical rating scales. Pain 1994:56:217-226.
7. Brokensha C. Whitehouse G: A comparison between iotrolan. a non-ionic dimer, and ahy-perosmolar contrast medium. Urografin, in hysterosalpingography. Br.1 Radiol 1991:64: 587-590.