As of January 2023, our "Journal of Controversies Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics" has been published under the Medihealth Academy to publish all articles, reviews and case reports on Pediatrics, especially in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology. In order to facilitate the citation of the articles, to take our place in internationally respected indexes and to reach a wider readership, we will pay attention to the fact that our article language is only English in terms of acceptance. This journal is indexed by indices that are considered international scientific journal indices (DRJI, ESJI, OAJI, etc.). According to the current Associate Professorship criteria, it is within the scope of International Article 1-d. Each article published in this journal corresponds to 5 points.

EndNote Style
Original Article
Exploring hysterosalpingography findings and pregnancy results among women applying to a tertiary referral hospital
Aims: To find out the correlation between hysterosalpingography (HSG) pathologies and pregnancy results of infertility patients. Infertility is a complicated complaint prevalent among women of reproductive age with severe financial and social consequences. HSG, adopted for evaluating infertility, can be considered a secondary imaging technique in practice following ultrasound examination. The present study attempted to explore the HSG results of patients applying to our hospital with the complaint of infertility in the last two years and to compare these results with their pregnancy.
Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the HSG results of the patients applying to or referred to our hospital from an external center between 10.01.2018 and 30.08.2020 with the complaint of infertility.260 patients were included in the study. The patients were grouped by their primary and secondary infertility. We analyzed anomalies detected by HSG in two groups: uterine and tubal anomalies. Moreover, those becoming pregnant following HSG until June 2022 were grouped by reproductive techniques (spontaneous or assisted). Patients not having optimal imaging, with HSG reports obtained at an external center, and with insignificant results were excluded from the study.
Results: The patients’ mean age was calculated to be 36 years (21-52 years). While 144 patients (55%) were diagnosed with primary infertility, 116 (45%) had a diagnosis with secondary infertility. There was no uterine or tubal anomaly in 157 patients undergoing HSG, but we discovered only a uterine defect in 28 of 103 patients and a tubal defect including at least one uterine and comorbid tuba in 44 patients. In 45 patients with a uterine anomaly, the most prevalent HSG findings were uterine filling defect (28 patients, 62.2%) and arcuate uterus (10 patients, 22.2%). We also discovered that 81 patients became pregnant at least once after HSG. While 50 of them got pregnant spontaneously, the remaining benefitted from assisted reproductive techniques. Our findings showed spontaneous pregnancy not to be associated with primary or secondary infertility (p=0.394; OR=0.765; 95% CI: 0.412-1.42). There was also no relationship between primary and secondary infertility and abnormal HSG findings (p=0.437; OR=0.820; 95% CI: 0.498-1.35). Finally, we concluded that abnormal HSG findings did not significantly contribute to the rate of spontaneous pregnancy (p=0.701; OR=1.13; 95% CI: 0.604-2.11).
Conclusion: We concluded that abnormal HSG findings did not contribute to the rates of spontaneous pregnancy.

1. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, et al. The internationalglossary on infertility and fertility care, 2017. Hum Reprod.2017;32(9):1786-1801. doi:10.1093/humrep/dex234
2. Boivin J, Bunting L, Collins JA, Nygren KG. International estimatesof infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking: potential need anddemand for infertility medical care. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(6):1506-1512. doi:10.1093/humrep/dem046
3. Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR, Boerma T, Vanderpoel S, StevensGA. National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalencesince 1990: a systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med.2012;9(12):e1001356. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001356
4. Evers JLH, Collins JA. Assessment of efficacy of varicocele repair formale subfertility: a systematic review. Lancet. 2003;361(9372):1849-1852. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13503-9
5. Sarac M, Koc I. Prevalence and risk factors of infertility in Turkey:evidence from demographic and health surveys, 1993-2013. J BiosocSci. 2018;50(4):472-490. doi:10.1017/S0021932017000244
6. Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Infertility around the globe: new thinking ongender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21stcentury. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(4):411-426. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmv016
7. Nachtigall RD. International disparities in access to infertility services.Fertil Steril. 2006;85(4):871-875. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.08.066
8. Infecundity, infertility, and childlessness in Developing Countries -DHS Comparative Reports No. 9. Accessed October 1, 2022. Availableonline: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/infecundity-infertilit y-and-childlessness-in-developing-countries---dhs-comparative-reports-no.-9
9. Practice Committee of the American Society for ReproductiveMedicine. Effectiveness and treatment for unexplained infertility. FertilSteril. 2006;86(5 Suppl 1):S111-114. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.07.1475
10. Khalaf Y. ABC of subfertility. Tubal subfertility. BMJ.2003;327(7415):610-613. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7415.610
11. Chalazonitis A, Tzovara I, Laspas F, Porfyridis P, Ptohis N,Tsimitselis G. Hysterosalpingography: technique and applications.Curr Problems Diagnostic Radiol. 2009;38(5):199-205. doi:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2008.02.003
12. Brown SE, Coddington CC, Schnorr J, Toner JP, Gibbons W,Oehninger S. Evaluation of outpatient hysteroscopy, saline infusionhysterosonography, and hysterosalpingography in infertile women:a prospective, randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(5):1029-1034.doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(00)01541-7
13. Dreyer K, van Eekelen R, Tjon-Kon-Fat RI, et al. The therapeutic effectof hysterosalpingography in couples with unexplained subfertility: apost-hoc analysis of a prospective multi-centre cohort study. ReprodBiomed Online. 2019;38(2):233-239. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.11.005
14. Borumandnia N, Alavi Majd H, Khadembashi N, Alaii H. Worldwidetrend analysis of primary and secondary infertility rates over pastdecades: A cross-sectional study. Int J Reprod Biomed. 2022;20(1):37-46.doi:10.18502/ijrm.v20i1.10407
15. Vander Borght M, Wyns C. Fertility and infertility: Definitionand epidemiology. Clin Biochem. 2018;62:2-10. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.03.012
16. Practice Committee of the American Society for ReproductiveMedicine. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile female: acommittee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(6):e44-50. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.019
17. Bello TO. Tubal abnormalities on hysterosalpingography in primaryand secondary infertility. West Afr J Med. 2006;25(2):130-133.doi:10.4314/wajm.v25i2.28263
18. Deshpande PS, Gupta AS. Causes and prevalence of factors causinginfertility in a public health facility. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2019;12(4):287-293. doi:10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_140_18
19. Maas JW, Evers JL, ter Riet G, Kessels AG. Pregnancy rate followingnormal versus abnormal hysterosalpingography findings: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1997;43(2):79-83. doi:10.1159/000291826
20. Sanei Sistani S, Dahmardeh H, Hasanzadeh R, Farzaneh F. Effectof hysterosalpingography (HSG) on biochemical pregnancy rate inwomen with primary and secondary infertility. Zahedan J Res Med Sci.2020;22(4):e91725. doi:10.5812/zjrms.91725
Volume 1, Issue 2, 2023
Page : 26-29