Abstract
In each virtual hysterosalpingography (VHSG) study there is a potential risk of carrying out an incorrect diagnosis. The VHSG has shown sensibility and specificity results similar to those of the conventional hysterosalpingography study. Nevertheless, a great number of false interpretations can affect the general validity of the method; the most efficient strategy to prevent the pitfalls is to appropriately solve the diagnostic errors which arise from false positives and negatives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Carrascosa P, Baronio M, Capuñay C, et al. Multidetector computed tomography virtual hysterosalpingography in the investigation of the uterus and fallopian tubes. Eur J Radiol. 2008;67(3):531–5.
Carrascosa P, Baronio M, Capuñay C, et al. Clinical use of 64-row multislice computed tomography hysterosalpingography in the evaluation of female factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(5):1953–8.
Mang T, Maier A, Plank C, et al. Pitfalls in multi-detector row CT colonography: a systematic approach. Radiographics. 2007;27:431–54.
Norman GR, Eva KW. Diagnostic error and clinical reasoning. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):94–100.
Mamede S, Schmidt HG, Rikers R. Diagnostic errors and reflective practice in medicine. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13(1):138–45.
Croskerry P. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med. 2003;78(8):775–80.
Graber M, Gordon R, Franklin N. Reducing diagnostic errors in medicine: what’s the goal? Acad Med. 2002;77(10):981–92.
Carrascosa PM, Capuñay C, Vallejos J, et al. Virtual hysterosalpingography: a new multidetector CT technique for evaluating the female reproductive system. Radiographics. 2010;30(3):643–61.
Ubeda B, Paraira M, Alert E, et al. Hysterosalpingography: spectrum of normal variants and nonpathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(1):131–5.
Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile female: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:302–7.
Steinkeler JA, Woodfield CA, Lazarus E, et al. Female infertility: a systematic approach to radiologic imaging and diagnosis. Radiographics. 2009;29(5):1353–70.
Ott DJ, Fayez JA. Tubal and adnexal abnormalities. In: Ott DJ, Fayez JA, Zagoria RJ, editors. Hysterosalpingography: a text and atlas. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1998. p. 90–3.
Tur-Kaspa I. Hysterosalpingography with a balloon catheter versus a metal cannula: a prospective, randomized, blinded comparative study. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:75–7.
Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Vallejos J, et al. Virtual hysterosalpingography: experience with over 1000 consecutive patients. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36(1):1–14.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carrascosa, P., Capuñay, C., Sueldo, C.E., Baronio, J.M. (2014). Pitfalls. In: CT Virtual Hysterosalpingography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07560-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07560-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-07559-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-07560-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)