论文部分内容阅读
目的评价输卵管通液测压诊断输卵管通畅性的临床价值。方法总结分析158例不孕症患者通液诊断和子宫输卵管造影(hysterosalpingography,HSG)资料,应用SJ-1宫腔输卵管注液测压诊疗仪分别进行通液诊断、HSG诊断,对比分析每例通液诊断结果与相应HSG诊断结果,通液诊断结果分通畅、不全通畅、不通,HSG相应诊断正常、不全阻塞、阻塞,分别评价两种检查方法诊断输卵管通畅性及输卵管病变的准确性,进行χ2检验。结果 158例通液诊断通畅100例、不全通畅36例、不通22例中HSG按病变输卵管较轻一侧分别诊断正常66例、不全阻塞7例、阻塞8例,HSG按病变输卵管较重一侧分别诊断正常39例、不全阻塞12例、阻塞18例,经χ2检验两种检查方法具有非常显著性差异。结论输卵管通液测压诊断误差大,不能明确输卵管病变部位、性质、程度,对指导治疗临床价值不大,不宜作为诊断检查技术。
Objective To evaluate the clinical value of tubal fluid pressure manometry in the diagnosis of tubal patency. Methods A total of 158 cases of infertility patients with fluid diagnosis and hysterosalpingography (hysterosalpingography, hysterosalpingography, hysterosalpingography data were analyzed by SJ-1 uterine tubal liquid pressure manometry instrument were diagnosed by liquid, HSG diagnosis, comparative analysis of each case Liquid diagnosis results and the corresponding HSG diagnostic results, fluid diagnosis results were smooth, not all smooth, unreasonable, HSG corresponding diagnosis of normal, not all obstruction, obstruction, respectively, evaluation of the two inspection methods to diagnose tubal patency and fallopian tube lesion accuracy χ2 test. Results 158 cases of open fluid diagnosis of patency in 100 cases, 36 cases of incomplete patency, failed in 22 cases of HSG by lesion on the lesser side of tubal were normal 66 cases, 7 cases of obstruction, obstruction in 8 cases, HSG by tubal heavier side of disease Respectively diagnosed normal 39 cases, 12 cases of incomplete obstruction, obstruction in 18 cases, by χ2 test the two test methods have very significant differences. Conclusion Tubal fluid pressure piezoresistive diagnostic error, can not clear the location, nature, extent of tubal lesions, the clinical value of guiding treatment is not large, not as a diagnostic test.