Is, in Infertile Women Undergoing a Basic Fertility Work-up, Tubal Flushing With Oil-based Contrast Medium During Hysterosalpingography (HSG) Cost-effective Compared to Tubal Flushing by Hysterosalpingo-foam Sonography (HyFoSy)?

Background: The diagnostic work-up for infertility generally includes estimating the risk for tubal pathology and if indicated assessing tubal patency. Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed with hysterosalpingography (HSG). In previous studies it has been demonstrated that tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG resulted in more ongoing pregnancies than when HSG is performed with water-based contrast. HyFoSy is a more patient friendly alternative for HSG. Up till now, the fertility enhancing effect of tubal flushing with ExEm Foam during HyFoSy has only been studied in relatively small and observational studies.

Objectives:The main objective of this study is to determine whether tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG results into more pregnancies leading to live births when compared to tubal flushing with ExEm Foam during HyFoSy, and whether this approach is cost-effective. In this study the safety of both strategies will also be compared.

Rationale: The hypothesis is that tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG leads to more live births compared to tubal flushing with ExEm Foam during HyFoSy in women with an indication for tubal patency testing. If more live births are achieved, expensive fertility treatments will be less needed, which makes tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG a cost-effective strategy.

Study design: This study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial with an economic analysis alongside it. Women with indication for tubal patency testing will be randomized to tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG and tubal flushing with ExEm Foam during HyFoSy.