117 Safety of HSG with oil-based contrast medium 5 Supplementary Table 5. (Continued) Intervention Reference Country Study design Purpose No. Population Mean age at HSG (y) (SD or IQR) Median (range) Contrast Volume OSCM (mL) Median (range) Fluoroscopy HSG results (Palmer, 1960) USA Cohort not spec Evaluate pregnancy rate and complications OSCM = 258 Subfertility (not spec) - Ethiodol - - - (Kuzavova, 1964) Russia Retrospective cohort Evaluate intravasation after HSG OSCM = 730 Only intravasation cases: all subfertility Intravasation cases: 20 – 37 Lipiodol (not spec) 3-5 No Cases with intravasation: Bilateral tubal occlusion 54% (Heinen and Schussler, 1966) Germany Retrospective cohort Evaluate intravasation after HSG OSCM = 122 - - Jodolen - - - (Geary et al., 1969) USA Retrospective cohort Evaluate pregnancy rates and complications OSCM = 501 Prim subfertility 55% Sec subfert 29% Other subfertility: 16% - Lipiodol (not spec) 10 - Both tubes patent 79% Unilateral tubal occlusion 7.4% Bilateral tubal occlusion 8.8% (Mackey et al., 1971) USA Retrospective cohort Evaluate pregnancy rates OSCM = 221 WSCM = 63 OSCM: Prim subfertility 63% Sec subfertility 37% OSCM: 27.3 – 28.9 Ethiodol - Yes -
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw