Two-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography compared to three/four-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography for the assessment of tubal occlusion in women with infertility/subfertility: a systematic review with meta-analysis

In this meta-analysis, we aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of 2D- and 3D/4D-HyCoSy for the assessment of tubal occlusion in women with infertility, using a laparoscopic tubal chromoperturbation dye test as the reference standard. Studies assessing 2D- and 3D/4D-HyCoSy for the assessment of tubal occlusion in women with infertility were searched from January 1990 to April 2019 using Medline and Web of Science databases by three of the authors, using the terms: ‘hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography’, ‘sonohysterosalpingography’, ‘HyCoSy’, ‘HyFoSy’, ‘three-dimensional’, ‘four-dimensional’, ‘ultrasound’, ‘tubal patency’ and ‘tubal occlusion’. Data quality was determined using the QUADAS-2 tool. Thirty articles were included; twenty-one studies used 2D-HyCoSy to assess tubal occlusion, six used 3D/4D-HyCoSy, one study used both techniques but in a different set of patients and two used both techniques in the same patients. The risk of bias for most studies was low as determined by QUADAS-2, except for the patient selection domain. Overall, pooled estimated sensitivity and specificity of 2D-HyCoSy were 86% (95% CI = 80%–91%) and 94% (95% CI = 90%–96%), respectively. The corresponding figures for 3D/4D HyCoSy were 95% (95% CI = 89%–98%) and 89% (95% CI = 82%–94%). High heterogeneity was found for both sensitivity and specificity. No statistically significant differences were found between the methods (p = 0.13). We concluded that 2D-HyCoSy has a similar diagnostic performance to 3D/4D-HyCoSy.