Introduction Hysterosalpingography (HSG) is an outpatient fluoroscopic method for the evaluation of the uterine cavity, fallopian tubes, and the surrounding peritoneal cavity. Female fertility depends greatly on normal female reproductive organs; hence tubal abnormalities may contribute significantly to female infertility. HSG is an invaluable screening tool in the evaluation of women with suspected tubal factor infertility. This study aims to review the HSG findings of women who sought fertility treatment at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Lagos (LUTH). Methods this was a retrospective study of the pattern of HSG findings among female partners of infertile couples seeking fertility treatment at the LUTH, over a 2-year period, from January 2018 to December 2019. Results a total of 266 medical records and HSG results were reviewed and included in the data analysis. The mean age (± standard deviation) was 38.4 (± 0.3) years with a range of 24 to 50 years. Most (80.5%) of the participants have secondary infertility and majority (65.4%) were nulliparous. Tubal pathology was the commonest abnormality detected on HSG in 54.9% of women. About one-third (30.8%) of women had bilateral tubal occlusion on HSG. With regards to the right fallopian tube, 43.2% of the participants had tubal occlusion, which differs from 41.7% on the left fallopian tube. Similarly, 10.2% of the women had hydrosalpinx on the left tube when compared with 9% on the right tube. Age (OR 1.055; 95% CI: 1.006, 1.106, p-value 0.028), and previous salpingectomy [OR 6.151; 95% CI: 1.335, 28.349] and myomectomy [OR 4.6; 95% CI: 1.814, 11.67] were identified as risk factors for tubal pathologies on HSG. Conclusion tubal abnormalities are common findings on HSG and the identifiable risk factors for tubal pathologies include age, salpingectomy, and myomectomy. HSG remains a vital screening tool in the evaluation of tubal-factor infertility in Nigeria.

Background: Women in developing countries have aversion for caesarean delivery. Those with one previous caesarean section sometimes have the option of proceeding with a trial of labour or planned repeat caesarean section (CS) in a subsequent pregnancy. While each option has its own attendant risks and benefits, decision making on the route of delivery should be individualised considering indication for the previous CS, obstetrics risk factors, patient's choice, facilities and expertise available. Aim: This study aims to determine the pregnancy outcome in women with one previous caesarean section in Lagos University Teaching Hospital. Method: This was a retrospective study of pregnancy outcome in women with one previous caesarean section managed in Lagos University Teaching Hospital between January 2010 and December 2014. Information was obtained from the case notes, labour ward and theatre records. Those women with previous classical caesarean section or prior uterine surgery were excluded. The collected data were analysed using SPSS software version 23. Result: There were 498 women fulfilling the eligibility criteria for this study out of 9,740 deliveries during the study period. The success rate of vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC) was 24.30%, elective caesarean section was 17.1% and emergency caesarean section was 58.63%. There were 11(10.8%) cases of scar dehiscence and 67(65.7%) cases of failure to progress in labour. No significant maternal and perinatal morbidity was observed in our study population. VBAC rate was significantly higher in women who had prior vaginal deliveries, especially in those with previous VBAC. Conclusion:In carefully selected cases, trial of scar (TOS) after a prior caesarean is safe and often successful. A prior vaginal delivery, particularly, a prior VBAC is associated with a higher rate of successful VBAC.