Introduction: Simplified ultrasound-based infertility protocols that appear to provide enough information to plan effective management have been described. Thus, the objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) in tubal patency testing with the traditional hysterosalpngography (HSG) for establishing a new diagnostic strategy in infertility. Material and Methods: Prospective observational diagnostic accuracy was performed in a private fertility clinic in which 106 women undergoing a preconceptionally visit were recruited. All of them had low risk for tubal disease, had performed an HSG and were negative for Chlamydia trachomatis antibody. Main outcome measures were tubal patency and pain grade. Results: Evaluation of tubal patency by HyFoSy showed a total concordance with the results of the previous HSG in 72.6% (n = 77), and a total discordance for 4.7% (n = 6), with the inter-test agreement Kappa equal to 0.57, which means moderate concordance. Among the patients, 59.1% did not report pain during the procedure, while the remaining 48.1% indicated pain in different degrees; patients usually report less pain and only 6.6% described more pain with HyFoSy than with HSG (OR 6.57 (CI 95% 3.11–13.89)). Clinical outcomes after performing HyFoSy were not affected. Conclusions: HyFoSy is in concordance with HSG regarding tubal patency results and it is a less painful technique than HSG. HyFoSy is more economical and can be performed in an exam room only equipped with an ultrasound scanner. Based on these results, HyFoSy could be the first-choice diagnostic option to assess tubal patency in patients with low risk of tubal disease.

The purpose of this study was to determine which strategy of embryo transfer has a better trade-off in live birth delivery rate versus multiple pregnancy considering patient acceptance: elective single embryo transfer (eSET) or elective double embryo transfer (eDET). In all, 199 women <38 years of age undergoing their first IVF treatment in a private centre were included in a prospective open-label randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomised into four groups: (1) eSET on Day 3; (2) eSET on Day 5; (3) eDET on Day 3; and (4) eDET on Day 5. Per patient, main analysis included acceptance of assigned group, as well as multiple and live birth delivery rates of the fresh cycle. Secondary analysis included the rates of subsequent cryotransfers and the theoretical cumulative success rate. Of 98 patients selected for eSET, 40% refused and preferred eDET. The live birth delivery rate after eDET was significantly higher after eDET versus eSET (65% vs 42%, respectively; odds ratio=1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.1-2.1). No multiple births were observed after eSET, compared with 35% after eDET. Although live birth delivery is higher with eDET, the increased risk of multiple births is avoided with eSET. Nearly half the patients refused eSET even after having been well informed about its benefits.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract