121 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 (Kaneshige et al., 2015) Japan Prospective cohort Evaluate maternal thyroid function after HSG OSCM = 22 Subfertility (not spec) 36+2.45 Lipiodol (not spec) 6.1 (4.0-9.0) - None bilateral tubal occlusion (Tan et al., 2019) China Prospective cohort Evaluate image quality and complications OSCM = 165 WSCM = 63 OSCM: Prim subfertility 64% OSCM 31.36 (4.99) Ethiodized poppyseed oil OSCM 6-8 Yes - (Schwabe et al., 1983) USA RCT Compare pregnancy rates after HSG OSCM = 56 WSCM = 65 Subfertility (not spec) - Ethiodol - Yes - (Alper et al., 1986) Canada RCT Compare pregnancy rates after HSG OSCM = 58 WSCM = 73 Subfertility (not spec) OSCM 29 (2.9) LipiodolÒ Ultra Fluid 10.5 (SD 4.7) Yes None bilateral tubal occlusion (Lindequist et al., 1991) Denmark RCT Evaluate complications after HSG OSCM = 103 WSCM = 314 Subfertility (not spec) - LipiodolÒ Ultra Fluid 5-10 Yes OSCM: Bilateral tubal patency 47% (Lindequist et al., 1994) Denmark RCT Compare pregnancy rates and complications after HSG OSCM = 123 WSCM = 122 OSCM: Prim subfertility 60% Sec subfertility 40% OSCM 29.9 (21-43) LipiodolÒ Ultra Fluid 5-10 Yes OSCM: Bilateral tubal patency 54% (Nugent et al., 2002) UK RCT Evaluate pregnancy rates after HSG OSCM = 17 Prim subfertility 71% Sec subfertility 29% 31 (1.1) Lipiodol (not spec) 5.8 (0.7) Yes All patent
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw