The experience of using magnetic resonance imaging of the uterus and its appendages as an alternative to X-ray hysterosalpingography

Objective. Determination of the diagnostic capabilities of magnetic resonance imaging of the uterus and its appendages (MRHSG) on devices with the induction of the magnetic field 3 Tesla (T) as an alternative to the classic X-ray hysterosalpingography, accompanied by a significant radiation dose to the patient.
Material and methods. During the period from April 2015 to February 2016 12 MRHSG was conducted using magnetic resonance imaging apparatus Verio Magnetom 3T, Siemens company (Diagnostic Center "BarsMed", Kazan, Russia). We used neutral and not giving adverse reactions contrast agent – carbon dioxide. The pelvic organs – the uterus and fallopian tubes – represent the zone of interest.
Results. Analysis of the data showed that MRHSG on the apparatus with the induction of the magnetic field of 3 T is a highly informative method in the diagnosis of tubal patency, allowing fully assess the state of the pelvic organs on the whole and identify pathology.
The absence of radiation exposure and contraindications associated with intolerance to iodinated contrast agents and other side effects differs MRHSG from the traditional X-ray method and makes MRHSG to be an alternative secure method of diagnosis, which has a number of advantages described in the article.
Conclusions. MRHSG on the apparatus with the induction of the magnetic field of 3 T in diagnosis of obstruction of the fallopian tubes and the visualization of the uterus and appendages diseases can be optimal and safe alternative to the X-ray hysterosalpingography, which accompanied with radiation exposure and is a number of side effects.

1. Sadowski E.A., Ochsner J.E., Riherd J.M., Korosec F.R., Agrawal G., Pritts E.A., Kliewer M.A. MR hysterosalpingography with an angiographic time-resolved 3D pulse sequence: assessment of tubal patency. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008; 191 (15): 1381–5.

2. Silberzweig J.E. MR Hysterosalpingography compared with Conventional Hysterosalpingography. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2009; 192: W350.

3. Frye R.E., Ascher S.M., Thomasson D. MR Hysterosalpingography: protocol development and refinement for simulating normal and abnormal fallopian tube patency — feasibility study with a phantom. Radiology. 2000; 214: 107–12.

4. Winter L., Glücker Th., Steimann S., Pegios W. Feasibility of dynamic MR-hysterosalpingography for the diagnostic work-up of infertile women. Acta Radiol. 2010; 51 (6): 693–701.

5. Ma L., Wu G., Wang Y., Zhang Y., Wang J., Li L., Zhou W. Fallopian tubal patency diagnosed by magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography. J. Reprod. Med. 2012; 57 (9–10): 435–40.

6. Ogorodnikov D.V Comparative evaluation of the indirect methods of visualization in the practice of reproduction. Available at: http://reproductologist.com/metodyinepryamoy-vizualizatsii-v-praktike-reproduktologa (accessed 20 May 2016) (in Russ.).

7. Trufanov G.E., Panov V.O. (eds) Radiation diagnostics in gynecology: a guide for physicians. St. Petersburg: ELBI-SPb; 2008 (in Russ.).

8. Makarov I.O., Ovsyannikova T.V., Shemanaeva T.V., Kulikov I.A., Guriev T.D. Ultrasonic diagnosis in infertility. Akusherstvo, Ginekologiya i Reproduktsiya (Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction, Russian journal). 2013; 2: 20–2 (in Russ.).

9. Mikhaylov I.M., Ibatullin M.M. Computed tomography CT or MRI, what to choose? Available at: www.healthynation.ru/73 (accessed 20 May 2016) (in Russ.).

10. Ryzhkin S.A., Ivanov S.I., Patyashina M.A. et al. Modern peculiarities of the medical exposurelevels forming of the Tatarstan Republic population during X-ray procedures implementation. Radiatsionnaya Gigiena (Radiation Hygiene, Russian journal). 2015; 8 (1): 45–54 (in Russ.).