• Anil B M Pinto, David M Hovsepian, Saranya Wattanakumtornkul, and Thomas K Pilgram.
• Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
• J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003 Jan 1; 14 (1): 69-74.

PurposeTo determine the pregnancy outcomes in patients undergoing fallopian tube recanalization (FTR) with use of oil-based versus water-soluble contrast agents.Materials And MethodsNinety-three patients with unilateral or bilateral proximal tubal occlusion confirmed by hysterosalpingography or laparoscopy underwent FTR with use of water-soluble contrast material alone (n = 50) or also had an oil-based agent injected into each tube after recanalization (n = 43). Pregnancy rates and outcomes of the two groups were studied retrospectively.ResultsWith respect to differences between groups, only the body mass index proved to be a significant predictor (oil, 28.4; water, 24.7; P =.008). Mean age, duration of infertility, type of infertility, and initial diagnosis were comparable. There was a weak trend toward a higher pregnancy rate in the oil-based contrast material group, but it was not significant (P =.64). The average time to pregnancy was 4.4 months with use of oil-based contrast material, compared to 7.7 months with use of only water-soluble contrast material (P =.03).ConclusionThe use of an oil-based agent had little effect on the rate of conception, but time to conception was reduced by more than 3 months.

18 keywords...

hide…