Received October 27, 2004
Accepted December 10, 2004

Objective:To compare the efficacy in studying tubal morphology and patency through SoSG contrasted with Echovist® or Levovist® with that of HSG and of LPC, and to calculate the respective accuracy rates in relation to the latter. Method:118 infertile patients were prospectively evaluated through SoSG, HSG and LPC. They were assign to two different groups, 90 were explored with Echovist® and 28 patients with Levovist®, depending on echo-enhancer availability. In all patients, Telebrix®, an iodinized contrast soluble in water, was used for HSG.The final evaluation of tubal patency and morphology was performedby LPC. Results:In the Echovist® group we found bilateral permeability in 67patients(74,4%) and blockade in 23 patients(25,6%) and in the Levovist® group in 22(78,6%) and 6 patients(21,4%), respectively.Comparing the evaluation of tubal permeability through Echovist®SoSG with that of LPC we found:specificity(E):91.3%, sensibility(S):100%, false positives(FP):8.7%, false negatives(FN):0%, positive predictive value (VPP):97.1%, negative predictive value(VPN):100% and Kappa value:96,5%. In the Echovist® group comparing the evaluation of tubal permeability through HSG with that of LPC we found:E100%, S91.04%, FP0%, FN8.96%, VPP100%, VPN79.31% and Kappa value of 88,6%. While for the Levovist®-SoSG group in relation to LPC the values were:E:100%, S:100%, FP:0%, FN:0%, VPP:100%, VPN:100% and Kappa:100%; and between HSG and LPC, in the Levovist® group, had been:E:100%, S:86.36%, FP:0%, FN:13.64%, VPP:100%, VPN:66.67% and Kappa:82,2%. Conclusion:Sonosalpingography(SoSG) using Echovist® or Levovist® as echo-enhancers can be proposed as the initial step in evaluating tubal factor, due to its accuracy, availability, safety and noninvasive character, being superior to HSG in all parameters when compared with the LPC.