TECHNOLOGY AND CONTRAST MEDIA / ORIGINAL PAPER
Diagnostic performance of HyFoSy versus HSG for tubal patency: accuracy and agreement analysis
1
Department of Radiology, Al-Kindy College of Medicine, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
2
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq
3
College of Medicine, University of Fallujah, Al-Anbar, Iraq
4
Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq
These authors had equal contribution to this work
Submission date: 2025-09-18
Final revision date: 2025-12-02
Acceptance date: 2025-12-28
Publication date: 2026-05-11
Corresponding author
Shaymaa K. Abdulqader
Department of Radiology, Al-Kindy College of Medicine, University of Baghdad, House 84, Lane 8, Block 645, Al-Adel District, Baghdad 10011, Iraq
Department of Radiology, Al-Kindy College of Medicine, University of Baghdad, House 84, Lane 8, Block 645, Al-Adel District, Baghdad 10011, Iraq
Pol J Radiol, 2026; 91(1): 222-229
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
Tubal patency examination is an essential part of the infertility workup; hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) is a recommended substitute for the standard hysterosalpingography (HSG). This study aimed to determine the diagnostic concordance of HyFoSy and HSG, as well as the impact of uterus position on test performance.
Material and methods:
The prospective observational cohort study enrolled 80 infertile women referred for assessing tubal patency at Al Yarmouk Hospital. Recorded parameters included demographics (age, parity, uterus position) and the results of tubal patency testing (patent, unilateral, or bilateral blocked tubes). HyFoSy was performed first, followed by HSG.
Results:
Age and parity were insignificant. HyFoSy showed a high degree of diagnostic concordance with HSG (85%), with a Cohen’s k coefficient of 0.3 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.05-0.55). Gwet’s agreement coefficient 1 was 0.84 (95%, CI: 0.74-0.94), indicating strong agreement. McNemar’s test revealed significant systematic bias between the methods (p < 0.001), suggesting that HyFoSy and HSG are not interchangeable, which was further confirmed by Bland-Altman analysis showing a mean bias of +0.25 in favor of HyFoSy. The latter has a tendency to overestimate tubal patency among women with a retroverted uterus.
Conclusions:
HyFoSy is a promising tool for use as a complementary infertility test, showing high concordance with HSG. However, it should not be used as a stand-in for HSG without clinical judgment, especially in women with a retroverted uterus. The best of both approaches may be provided by a hybrid strategy that uses HyFoSy as a first-line test and saves HSG for cases that are unclear or high-risk.
Tubal patency examination is an essential part of the infertility workup; hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) is a recommended substitute for the standard hysterosalpingography (HSG). This study aimed to determine the diagnostic concordance of HyFoSy and HSG, as well as the impact of uterus position on test performance.
Material and methods:
The prospective observational cohort study enrolled 80 infertile women referred for assessing tubal patency at Al Yarmouk Hospital. Recorded parameters included demographics (age, parity, uterus position) and the results of tubal patency testing (patent, unilateral, or bilateral blocked tubes). HyFoSy was performed first, followed by HSG.
Results:
Age and parity were insignificant. HyFoSy showed a high degree of diagnostic concordance with HSG (85%), with a Cohen’s k coefficient of 0.3 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.05-0.55). Gwet’s agreement coefficient 1 was 0.84 (95%, CI: 0.74-0.94), indicating strong agreement. McNemar’s test revealed significant systematic bias between the methods (p < 0.001), suggesting that HyFoSy and HSG are not interchangeable, which was further confirmed by Bland-Altman analysis showing a mean bias of +0.25 in favor of HyFoSy. The latter has a tendency to overestimate tubal patency among women with a retroverted uterus.
Conclusions:
HyFoSy is a promising tool for use as a complementary infertility test, showing high concordance with HSG. However, it should not be used as a stand-in for HSG without clinical judgment, especially in women with a retroverted uterus. The best of both approaches may be provided by a hybrid strategy that uses HyFoSy as a first-line test and saves HSG for cases that are unclear or high-risk.
REFERENCES (28)
1.
Cassiman EG, Harter S, Mougel R, Mezan De Malartic C, Bertholdt C, Morel O, Agopiantz M. Is hysterosalpingo-foam sonography the new gold standard for assessing tubal patency? A systematic eview and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2025; 50: 104380. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.104380.
2.
Tanaka K, Chua J, Cincotta R, Ballard EL, Duncombe G. Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy): tolerability, safety and the occurrence of pregnancy post-procedure. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2018; 58: 114-118.
3.
Engels V, Medina M, Antolín E, Ros C, Amaro A, De-Guirior C, et al. Feasibility, tolerability, and safety of hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (hyfosy). Multicenter, prospective Spanish study. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2021; 50: 102004. DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.102004.
4.
Serrano González L, Pérez-Medina T, Bueno Olalla B, Royuela A, de Los Reyes De La Cuesta M, Saéz de la Mata D, et al. Is hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) more tolerable in terms of pain and anxiety than hysterosalpingography (HSG)? A prospective real-world setting multicentre study. BMC Womens Health 2022; 22: 41. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-022-01606-3.
5.
Lo Monte G, Capobianco G, Piva I, Caserta D, Dessole S, Marci R. Hysterosalpingo contrast sonography (HyCoSy): let’s make the point! Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 291: 19-30.
6.
Boned-López J, Alcázar JL, Errasti T, Ruiz-Zambrana A, Rodriguez I, Pascual MA, Guerriero S. Severe pain during hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2021; 304: 1389-1398.
7.
Frinking P, Segers T, Luan Y, Tranquart F. Three decades of ultrasound contrast agents: a review of the past, present and future improvements. Ultrasound Med Biol 2020; 46: 892-908.
8.
Lim SL, Jung JJ, Yu SL, Rajesh H. A comparison of hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) and hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with saline medium (HyCoSy) in the assessment of tubal patency. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015; 195: 168-172.
9.
Rajesh H, Lim SL, Yu SL. Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography: patient selection and perspectives. Int J Womens Health 2017; 9: 23-32.
10.
Tsakos E, Xydias EM, Emmanouil V, Koutini M, Ntanika A, Prior M, et al. O-271 Application of HyFoSy in the assessment of fallopian tube patency compared to HyCoSy and HS; results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2023; 38 (Suppl 1): dead093.325. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dead093.325.
11.
Kamphuis D, van Eekelen R, van Welie N, Dreyer K, van Rijswijk J, van Hooff MHA, et al. Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility workup: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2024; 39: 1222-1230.
12.
Bohîlțea RE, Mihai BM, Stănică CD, Gheorghe CM, Berceanu C, Dima V, et al. Technical tips and tricks after 10 years of HyFoSy for tubal patency testing. J Clin Med 2022; 11: 5946. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11195946.
13.
Nori W, Helmi ZR. Can follicular fluid 8-oxo-2¢-deoxyguanosine predict the clinical outcomes in ICSI cycle among couples with normospermia male? Obstet Gynecol Sci 2023; 66: 430-440.
14.
Van Welie N, van Rijswijk J, Dreyer K, van Hooff MH, Peter de Bruin J, Verhoeve HR, et al. Can hysterosalpingo-foam sonography replace hysterosalpingography as first-choice tubal patency test? A randomized non-inferiority trial. Hum Reprod 2022; 37: 969-979.
15.
Ramos J, Caligara C, Santamaría-López E, González-Ravina C, Prados N, Carranza F, et al. Diagnostic accuracy study comparing hysterosalpingo-foam sonography and hysterosalpingography for fallopian tube patency assessment. J Clin Med 2021; 10: 4169. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10184169.
16.
McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012; 22: 276-282.
17.
Emanuel MH, van Vliet M, Weber M, Exalto N. First experiences with hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) for office tubal patency testing. Hum Reprod 2011; 27: 114-117.
18.
Li Y, Chen X, Wang Q, Wang J. Factors influencing the visualization of fallopian tubes in hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) – the value of multimodal HyCoSy in visualizing the fallopian tubes. J Ultrasound Med 2024; 43: 1957-1967.
19.
Fu F, Zhu YF, Chen YF, Zhuang JJ, Zheng WT, Liang RX, Ye Q. Diagnostic value of multimodal hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography combined with negative intrauterine contrast-enhanced ultrasound in female infertility. BMC Womens Health 2025; 25: 62. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-025-03598-2.
20.
Revzin MV, Moshiri M, Katz DS, Pellerito JS, Gettle LM, Menias CO. Imaging evaluation of fallopian tubes and related disease: a primer for radiologists. Radiographics 2020; 40: 1473-1501.
21.
Exacoustos C, Pizzo A, Lazzeri L, Pietropolli A, Piccione E, Zupi E. Three-dimensional hysterosalpingo contrast sonography with gel foam: methodology and feasibility to obtain 3-dimensional volumes of tubal shape. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017; 24: 827-832.
22.
Grigovich M, Kacharia VS, Bharwani N, Hemingway A, Mijatovic V, Rodgers SK. Evaluating fallopian tube patency: what the radiologist needs to know. Radiographics 2021; 41: 1876-1896.
23.
Rajesh H, Lim SL, Yu SL. Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography: patient selection and perspectives. Int J Womens Health 2016; 9: 23-32.
24.
Piccioni MG, Riganelli L, Filippi V, Fuggetta E, Colagiovanni V, Imperiale L, et al. Sonohysterosalpingography: comparison of foam and saline solution. J Clin Ultrasound 2017; 45: 67-71.
25.
Zafarani F, Ghaffari F, Ahmadi F, Mehranjani MS, Shahrzad G. Hysterosalpingography in the assessment of proximal tubal pathology: a review of congenital and acquired abnormalities. Br J Radiol 2021; 94: 20201386. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20201386.
26.
Le Lous M, Klein M, Tesson C, Berthelemy J, Lavoue V, Jannin P. Metrics used to evaluate obstetric ultrasound skills on simulators: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2021; 258: 16-22.
27.
Abdulqader SK, Nori W, Akram NN, Al-Kinani M. Radiological modalities for the assessment of fetal growth restriction: a comprehensive review. Al-Kindy Col Med J 2024; 20: 4-13. DOI: 10.47723/nz221421.
28.
Wong SC, Yung KS, Chan RL, Luk WH. Hysterosalpingographic findings from uterus to peritoneal cavity: a pictorial essay. Hong Kong J Radiol 2023, 26: 153-160.
| ISSN: | 1899-0967 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
