Journal of AdvancedMedical and Dental Sciences Research

Background:This study aims to compare conventional hysterosalpingography (HSG) and magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography (MRHSG) in assessing tubal patency. Conventional HSG uses contrast media to visualize the uterine cavity and fallopian tubes, while MRHSG utilizes magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detailed cross-sectional images. The research seeks to identify any differences or advantages between the two methods, contributing insights to reproductive medicine and potentially enhancing diagnostic accuracy in assessing female reproductive health.Methods:The study included 100 patients aged 20–40 for tubal patency evaluation, including those post-tubal ligation reversal and recurrent spontaneous abortions. Examinations occurred on Day 7–Day 12 of the menstrual cycle. Results:MR HSG and cHSG demonstrated comparative diagnostic performance, with sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and diagnostic accuracy for MR HSG at 100%, 99.08%, 100%, 97.5%, and 99.75%, respectively. Similarly, the comparison between MR HSG and DL revealed values of 100%, 93.73%, 87.21%, 100%, and 96%, respectively.The Kappa agreement between MR HSG and cHSG was excellent at 0.97, indicating substantial concordance. The McNemar test with a value of 1 showed no statistical difference between the two procedures, further affirming their comparable diagnostic efficacy.Conclusion:MR HSG represents a novel and emerging investigative method with limited prior exploration on both national and international fronts. This study stands out by uniquely delving into the practicality and applicability of conducting HSG through MRI, contributing to the growing body of knowledge in this evolving field.