Skip to main content
. 2022 Apr 5;46:101363. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101363

Table 3.

Qualitative results of HSG images.

Items Oil group,
No. (%) N = 491
Water group,
No. (%) N = 491
Total, No. (%)
N = 982
P value
Uterus opacification or uterine outline <0.001
 Weakly visualized and not diagnostic 0 (0.0) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.1)
 Weakly visualized but diagnostic 6 (1.2) 8 (1.6) 14 (1.4)
 Good demonstration and diagnostic 49 (10.0) 140 (28.5) 189 (19.2)
 Outstanding visualization 436 (88.8) 342 (69.7) 778 (79.2)
Fallopian tube outline <0.001
 Weakly visualized and not diagnostic 22 (4.5) 24 (4.9) 46 (4.7)
 Weakly visualized but diagnostic 51 (10.4) 140 (28.5) 191 (19.5)
 Good demonstration and diagnostic 187 (38.1) 268 (54.6) 455 (46.3)
 Outstanding visualization 231 (47.0) 59 (12.0) 290 (29.5)
Fimbrial rugae <0.001
 Weakly visualized and not diagnostic 61 (12.4) 72 (14.7) 133 (13.5)
 Weakly visualized but diagnostic 148 (30.1) 212 (43.2) 360 (36.7)
 Good demonstration and diagnostic 147 (29.9) 181 (36.9) 328 (33.4)
 Outstanding visualization 135 (27.5) 26 (5.3) 161 (16.4)
Fallopian tube spillage <0.001
 Weakly visualized and not diagnostic 50 (10.2) 64 (13.0) 114 (11.6)
 Weakly visualized but diagnostic 42 (8.6) 107 (21.8) 149 (15.2)
 Good demonstration and diagnostic 228 (46.4) 270 (55.0) 498 (50.7)
 Outstanding visualization 171 (34.8) 50 (10.2) 221 (22.5)
Peritoneal distribution <0.001
 Weakly visualized and not diagnostic 49 (10.0) 60 (12.2) 109 (11.1)
 Weakly visualized but diagnostic 5 (1.0) 23 (4.7) 28 (2.9)
 Good demonstration and diagnostic 29 (5.9) 206 (42.0) 235 (23.9)
 Outstanding visualization 408 (83.1) 202 (41.1) 610 (62.1)

HSG, hysterosalpingography.