['To compare hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with a saline-air device to hysterosalpingography for evaluating tubal patency.', 'Eighty women undergoing infertility evaluations were recruited for this prospective cohort study. All patients underwent both office-based hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with a saline-air device and hysterosalpingography as the reference standard, and the fallopian tubes were individually assessed for tubal patency in each procedure. The Cohen κ coefficient was used to assess agreement between each procedure, and the Student t test and χ(2) test were used to compare differences in time, pain, and procedural preference.', 'In total, 75 patients with 148 fallopian tubes were evaluated. Tubal patency on hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography with the saline-air device was noted in 85.8% (n = 127) of tubes compared to 92.5% (n = 137) on hysterosalpingography, with a positive predictive value of 95.2%. Tubal occlusion was noted in 21 tubes (14.2%) on hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography compared to 11 (7.4%) on hysterosalpingography, with a negative predictive value of 23.8% (24 of 28). Overall, hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography agreed with hysterosalpingography in 126 of 148 fallopian tubes (85.1%; κ = 0.47; P < .001). The procedural time and pain scores were significantly greater for hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography compared to hysterosalpingography.'] Does hysterosalpingo-Contrast Sonography With a Saline-Air Device be Equivalent to Hysterosalpingography Only in the Presence of Tubal Patency?