International Journal of
Reproductive Biomedicine
Sat, Apr 20, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 17, Issue 7 (July 2019 2019)
IJRM 2019, 17(7): 481-486 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Eftekhar M, Saeed L, Hoseini M. The effect of catheter rotation during its withdrawal on frozen thawed embryo-transfer cycles outcomes: A Case-control study. IJRM 2019; 17 (7) :481-486
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-1580-en.html
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-1580-en.html
1- Yazd Reasearch and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd Reproductive Science Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University, Yazd, Iran
2- Yazd Reasearch and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd Reproductive Science Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University, Yazd, Iran , saeed6@yahoo.com
2- Yazd Reasearch and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd Reproductive Science Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University, Yazd, Iran , saeed6@yahoo.com
Abstract: (2063 Views)
Background: Embryo transfer (ET) is the last and the most clinical process in assisted reproductive technology cycle. It has been suggested that cervical mucus interacts with an adequate embryo transfer in different ways. A few studies showed that catheter rotation could discharge mucus entrapped in the embryo to neutralize embryo displacement.
Objective: The aim of this present study was to compare the outcome of frozen embryo transfer (FET) based on catheter rotation during withdrawal.
Materials and Methods: In this case-control study, the clinical documents of 240 women who experienced frozen embryo transfer cycles were reviewd. The subjects were divided into two groups (n = 120/each), including A) the rotation treatment group (360°) that underwent ET using catheter rotation and B) the control group including the subjects who experienced ET with no catheter rotation. Clinical and chemical pregnancies and implantation rates were compared between two groups.
Results: Results showed that there is no significant difference between the basic clinical and demographic features of both groups (p > 0.05). A significant difference was observed in terms of the rate of chemical pregnancy between groups (21.7% vs 43.3%, p = 0.001 respectively). In addition, the rate of clinical pregnancy was significantly higher in study group than the control (33.35% vs 14.2%, p = 0.002 respectively).
Conclusion: Our results demonstrated that catheter rotation during withdrawal increased the implantation rate and clinical pregnancy.
Objective: The aim of this present study was to compare the outcome of frozen embryo transfer (FET) based on catheter rotation during withdrawal.
Materials and Methods: In this case-control study, the clinical documents of 240 women who experienced frozen embryo transfer cycles were reviewd. The subjects were divided into two groups (n = 120/each), including A) the rotation treatment group (360°) that underwent ET using catheter rotation and B) the control group including the subjects who experienced ET with no catheter rotation. Clinical and chemical pregnancies and implantation rates were compared between two groups.
Results: Results showed that there is no significant difference between the basic clinical and demographic features of both groups (p > 0.05). A significant difference was observed in terms of the rate of chemical pregnancy between groups (21.7% vs 43.3%, p = 0.001 respectively). In addition, the rate of clinical pregnancy was significantly higher in study group than the control (33.35% vs 14.2%, p = 0.002 respectively).
Conclusion: Our results demonstrated that catheter rotation during withdrawal increased the implantation rate and clinical pregnancy.
Type of Study: Original Article |
References
1. 1] Gardner DK, Weissman A, Howles CM, Shoham Z. Textbook of assisted reproductive techniques: laboratory and clinical perspectives. USA: Informa Healthcare; 2016. [DOI:10.1201/9781439813942]
2. [2] Neelam B, Mohanlal S, Namita K, Soni RR. Embryo transfer technic-role of transfer catheter. J Obstet Gynecol India 2005; 55: 146-150.
3. [3] Yayla Abide C, Ozkaya E, Sanverdi I, Bostanc Ergen E, Kurek Eken M, Devranoglu B, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing embryo transfers of cases with and without catheter rotation during its withdrawal. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2018; 83: 397-403. [DOI:10.1159/000489493] [PMID]
4. [4] Mansour RT, Aboulghar MA, Serour Gl, Amin YM. Dummy embryo transfer using methylene blue dye. Hum Reprod 1994; 9: 1257-1259. [DOI:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138690] [PMID]
5. [5] Kim CS, Berkley BB, Abraham WM, Wanner A. A micro double capillary method for rheologic measurements of lower airway secretions. Bull Eur Physiopathol Respir 1982; 18: 915-927.
6. [6] Srivastava N, Burns MA. Analysis of non-Newtonian liquids using a microfluidic capillary viscometer. Anal Chem 2006; 78: 1690-1696. [DOI:10.1021/ac0518046] [PMID]
7. [7] Sallam HN. Embryo transfer: factors involved in optimizing the success. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2005; 17: 289- 298. [DOI:10.1097/01.gco.0000169107.08000.dd] [PMID]
8. [8] Eskandar MA, Abou-Setta AM, El-Amin M, Almushait MA, Sobande AA. Removal of cervical mucus prior to embryo transfer improves pregnancy rates in women undergoing assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online 2007; 14: 308-313. [DOI:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60872-3]
9. [9] Aflatoonian A, Asgharnia M, Tabibnejad N. [Effect of cervical mucus aspiration with insulin syringe on pregnancy rate in ART cycles.] Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci Health Ser 2005; 4: 65-71. (in Persian)
10. [10] Moini A, Kiani K, Bahmanabadi A, Akhoond M, Akhlaghi A. Improvement in pregnancy rate by removal of cervical discharge prior to embryo transfer in ICSI cycles: a randomised clinical trial. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2011; 51: 315-320. [DOI:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2011.01318.x] [PMID]
11. [11] Rabiee S, Kaboodmehri R, Fallah M, Yavangi M, Sanouei Farimani M. Effect of cervical mucus aspiration before embryo transfer on pregnancy rate. Iran J Reprod Med 2013; 11: 849-850.
12. [12] Dasig J, Zhao Q, Shu Y, Reddy V, Gebhardt J, Behr B. IVF outcomes: effects of blood or mucus on the tip of a soft embryo transfer catheter after embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: S26. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.01.104]
13. [13] Selman H, Mariani M, Barnocchi N, Mencacci A, Bistoni F, Arena S, et al. Examination of bacterial contamination at the time of embryo transfer, and its impact on the IVF/pregnancy outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet 2007; 24: 395-399. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-007-9146-5] [PMID] [PMCID]
14. [14] Knutzen V, Stratton CJ, Sher G, McNamee PI, Huang TT, Soto-Albors C. Mock embryo transfer in early luteal phase, the cycle before in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: a descriptive study. Fertil Steril 1992; 57: 156-162. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(16)54793-1]
15. [15] Madani T, Ashrafi M, Jahangiri N, Abadi AB, Lankarani N. Improvement of pregnancy rate by modification of embryo transfer technique: a randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 2424-2426. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.03.046] [PMID]
16. [16] Saravelos SH, Wong AW, Chan CP, Kong GW, Cheung LP, Chung CH, et al. Assessment of the embryo flash position and migration with 3D ultrasound within 60 min of embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2016; 31: 591-596. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dev343] [PMID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
