Evaluation of Hysterosalpingographic Findings among Patients Presenting with Infertility
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i7.1911Keywords:
Hysterosalpingography, infertility, uterine abnormalities, tubal occlusion, reproductive healthAbstract
Aim and Background: Hysterosalpingography (HSG) is routinely employed in evaluating infertility to detect uterine and tubal abnormalities. This study aimed to determine the frequency and types of hysterosalpingographic abnormalities among women presenting with primary and secondary infertility. Material and Method: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted from December 2024 to May 2025 at Sheikh Zayed Hospital, Rahim Yar Khan. A total of 103 women aged 18-40 years, experiencing infertility for ≥12 months, underwent HSG. Abnormalities assessed included uterine fibroids, adhesions, congenital anomalies, hydrosalpinx, and tubal occlusion. Data analysis employed SPSS version 26. Results: Mean age was 29.7 ± 5.1 years, with average infertility duration of 3.8 ± 2.4 years. Primary infertility was observed in 61 (59.2%) and secondary in 42 (40.8%) women. Overall, 80 (77.7%) had abnormal HSG findings, significantly higher in secondary (88.1%) versus primary infertility (70.5%; p=0.031). Uterine abnormalities occurred in 33 (32%), including fibroids 14 (13.6%), polyps or adhesions 8 (7.8%), congenital anomalies 5 (4.9%), and Asherman's syndrome 6 (5.8%). Tubal pathology was identified in 54 (52.4%) women, including tubal occlusion 41 (39.8%), bilateral occlusion 18 (17.5%), unilateral occlusion 23 (22.3%), and hydrosalpinx 14 (13.6%). Longer infertility duration (≥4 years) significantly correlated with abnormal findings (87.5% vs. 69.1%; p=0.042). Conclusion: HSG revealed a high frequency of tubal and uterine abnormalities, particularly among secondary infertility patients. Early evaluation via HSG can facilitate timely diagnosis and management, potentially improving reproductive outcomes.
Downloads
References
1. Penzias A, Azziz R, Bendikson K, et al.: Fertility evaluation of infertile women: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2021, 116:1255–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FERTNSTERT.2021.08.038
2. Dishuck CF, Perchik JD, Porter KK, Gunn DD: Advanced Imaging in Female Infertility. Curr Urol Rep. 2019, 20:1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-019-0942-0
3. Deyhoul N, Mohamaddoost T, Hosseini M: Infertility-related risk factors: A systematic review. Int J Women’s Heal Reprod Sci. 2017, 5:24–9.
https://doi.org/10.15296/ijwhr.2017.05
4. Mayer C, Deedwania P: Hysterosalpingogram. StatPearls. Published Online First: 7 September 2022.
5. Toufig H, Benameur T, Twfieg ME, Omer H, El-Musharaf T: Evaluation of hysterosalpingographic findings among patients presenting with infertility. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2020, 27:2876.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SJBS.2020.08.041
6. Abebe MS, Afework M, Abaynew Y: Primary and secondary infertility in Africa: systematic review with meta-analysis. Fertil Res Pract. 2020, 6:1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40738-020-00090-3
7. Sarkar S, Gupta P: Socio-demographic correlates of women’s infertility and treatment seeking behavior in India. J Reprod Infertil. 2016, 17:123–32.
8. Cedars M, Jaffe RB: Infertility and Women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005, 90:0–0.
https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem.90.4.9997
9. Omidiji OAT, Toyobo OO, Adegbola O, Fatade A, Olowoyeye OA: Hysterosalpingographic findings in infertility – What has changed over the years. Afr Health Sci. 2019, 19:1866–74.
https://doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v19i2.9
10. Gupta M, Agarwal N, Agrawal A: Evaluation of Pattern of Hysterosalpingography in Infertility Patients. Int J Infertil Fetal Med. 2023, 14:18–21.
https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10016-1302
11. Reddy GS, Jyothi G: Hysterosalpingogram in evaluation of primary and secondary infertility: a two year study at a tertiary care hospital of South India. Int J Reprod Contraception, Obstet Gynecol. 2019, 8:2202.
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20192164
12. Aduayi O, Akanbi G, Akintayo A, Aduayi V: Hysterosalpingography findings among women presenting for gynecological imaging in Ado-Ekiti, South western Nigeria. Int J Reprod Contraception, Obstet Gynecol. 2016, 5:1906–11.
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20161688
13. Canday M, Yurtkal A, Kirat S: Evaluation and perspectives on hysterosalpingography (HSG) procedure in infertility: a comprehensive study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2023, 27:7107–17.
https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202308_33284
14. Karim S, Bashir S, Bibi A, Riaz M, Faiz S, Shafi A, Khakwani AK: Comparison of Hysterosalpingographic findings in patients with Primary and Secondary Subfertility. Pakistan J Med Heal Sci. 2022, 16:302–4.
https://doi.org/10.53350/pjmhs22162302
15. Kayani A, Khan R, Siddiqui TS, Rehman AU, Ahmed R, Khan Y: Hysterosalpingographic Pattern of Primary Sub-fertility and Secondary Sub-fertility in Women of Reproductive Age. Pakistan Armed Forces Med J. 2024, 74:1251–4.
https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v74i5.5394
16. Edzie EKM, Dzefi-Tettey K, Gorleku PN, et al.: Hysterosalpingographic Findings Among Ghanaian Women with Infertility: A Five-year Trend Analysis. Oman Med J. 2024, 39:
https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2024.57
17. Malik N: A Comparison of Hysterosalpingographic Results in Individuals Experiencing Primary and Secondary Infertility: A Prospective Approach. J Islam Med Dent Coll. 2024, 12:310–7.
https://doi.org/10.35787/jimdc.v12i4.1053
18. 18. Adedigba JA, Idowu BM, Hermans SP, Ibitoye BO, Fawole OA: The relationship between hysterosalpingography findings and female infertility in a nigerian population. Polish J Radiol. 2020, 85:e188–95.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Indus Journal of Bioscience Research

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.