Another benefit of the office hysteroscope


Like Comment

Volume 108, Issue 4, Page 608


John C. Petrozza, M.D.


Reflections on "Performing the Parryscope technique gently for office tubal patency assessment" by Parry et al.

Read the full text here.

Fertility and Sterility

Editorial Office, American Society for Reproductive Medicine

Fertility and Sterility® is an international journal for obstetricians, gynecologists, reproductive endocrinologists, urologists, basic scientists and others who treat and investigate problems of infertility and human reproductive disorders. 


Go to the profile of John Storment
over 4 years ago

Thanks for the very nice summary of Dr. Parry's novel technique on determining tubal patency.  Whenever I see a new diagnostic test to obtain information, the first question I ask is always, "what's wrong with the way we do it now?  i.e. is there a need for a new test?"  The three big problems with an HSG (in my opinion) are 1) the cost 2) the inconvenience of having to go to the hospital 3) the pain with the procedure.  The Parryscope should address each of these - although the cost could possibly be similar.  The downside is that you have no image of the tube, per se' and you cannot detect periadnexal adhesions as well as you can with an HSG.  A hydrosalpinx could be missed easily.  We converted an exam room to an HSG room, purchasing a pre-owned  C-arm for imaging.   We have been doing HSG's in the office for 5 years.   We charge $500 for the total cost (compared to $1800 charge from the hospital).   The convenience for the physician and patient is improved.    The pain associated with the HSG is still the same.   But the images and information obtained with the HSG may be worth it.   I think Dr. Parry did an excellent job finding a new way to diagnose tubal patency and proving the predictability of the results.  I'm curious how many practitioners convert and if not having imaging of the tubes impacts overall treatment.