International Journal of
Reproductive Biomedicine
Wed, Apr 24, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 5, Issue 4 (7-2007)
IJRM 2007, 5(4): 95-98 |
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:
davar R, Ghandi S, Tayebi N. Does transabdominal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer improve pregnancy rates in ART cycles?. IJRM 2007; 5 (4) :95-98
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-83-en.html
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-83-en.html
1- Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran , r_davar@yahoo.com
2- Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
2- Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
Abstract: (2361 Views)
Background: Recent reports have suggested that ultrasound-guided embryo transfer (UG-ET) might improve pregnancy rates.
Objective: To determine whether transabdominal UG-ET is a useful tool for increasing pregnancy and implantation rates in patients undergoing IVF or ICSI.
Materials and Methods: A prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted in 180 patients in order to compare embryo transfer under abdominal ultrasound-guidance (n=90) with embryo transfer by clinical touch method (n=90).
Results: The Clinical pregnancy rate was 21.1 % in the ultrasound-guided group and 15.5 % in the clinical touch group (p =0.3). The implantation rate in the ultrasound guided group was 11.1% while this was 7.2% in the clinical touch group (p =0.12). The percentage of difficult transfer was not significantly different in both groups, this was 8.9% in the ultrasound-guided group and 13.3% in the clinical touch group (p =0.47).
Conclusions: Although the clinical pregnancy and implantation rate are higher in UG-ET group than the clinical touch group, but this difference was not statistically significant.
Objective: To determine whether transabdominal UG-ET is a useful tool for increasing pregnancy and implantation rates in patients undergoing IVF or ICSI.
Materials and Methods: A prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted in 180 patients in order to compare embryo transfer under abdominal ultrasound-guidance (n=90) with embryo transfer by clinical touch method (n=90).
Results: The Clinical pregnancy rate was 21.1 % in the ultrasound-guided group and 15.5 % in the clinical touch group (p =0.3). The implantation rate in the ultrasound guided group was 11.1% while this was 7.2% in the clinical touch group (p =0.12). The percentage of difficult transfer was not significantly different in both groups, this was 8.9% in the ultrasound-guided group and 13.3% in the clinical touch group (p =0.47).
Conclusions: Although the clinical pregnancy and implantation rate are higher in UG-ET group than the clinical touch group, but this difference was not statistically significant.
Type of Study: Original Article |
References
1. Edwards RG. Clinical approaches to increasing uterine receptivity during human implantation. Human Reprod 1995; 10:60-66. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/10.suppl_2.60]
2. Al-Shawaf T, Dave R, Harper J, Linehan D, Riley P, Craft I. Transfer of embryos into the uterus: How much do technical factors affect pregnancy rates? J Assist Reprod Genet 1993; 10:31-36. [DOI:10.1007/BF01204437]
3. Woolcott R, Stanger J. Potentially important variables identified by transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:963-636. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/12.5.963]
4. Coroleu B, Carreras O, Veiga A, Martell A, Martinez F, Belil I, et al. Embryo transfer under ultrasound guidance improves pregnancy rates in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:616-620.Coroleu B, Barri PN, Carreras O, Martínez F, Parriego M, Hereter L, et al. The influence of the depth of embryo replacement into the uterine cavity on implantation rates after IVF: a controlled, ultrasound-guided study. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:341-346. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/17.2.341]
5. Matorras R, Urquijo E, Mendoza R, Corcostegui B, Exposito A, Rodriguez-Escudero FJ. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer improved pregnancy rates and increases the frequency of easy transfer. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:1762-1766. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/17.7.1762]
6. Kan AKS, Abdalla HI, Gafar AH, Nappi L, Ogunyemi BO, Thomas A, et al. Embryo transfer: Ultrasound-guided versus clinical touch. Hum Reprod 1999; 14:1259-1261. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/14.5.1259]
7. Coroleu B, Barri PN, Carreras O, Martinez F, Veiga A, Balasch J. The usefulness of ultrasound guidance in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:2885-2890. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/17.11.2885]
8. Garcia-Velasco JA, Isaza Vv, Martinez-Salazar J, Landazabal A, Requena A, Remhoi J et al. Transabdominal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer does not increase pregnancy rate in oocyte recipients. Fertili Steril.2002; 78:534-539. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(02)03249-1]
9. Strickler RC, Christianson C, Crane JP, Curato A, Knight AB, Yang V. Ultrasound guidance for human embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1985; 43:54-61. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(16)48317-2]
10. Leong M, Leung C, Tucker M, Wong C, Chan H. Ultrasound-assisted embryo transfer. J In vitro Fert Emb Tranf 1986; 3:383-385. [DOI:10.1007/BF01133254]
11. Tang OS, Ng EH, So WW, Ho PC. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:2310-2315. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/16.11.2310]
12. Li R, Lu L, Hao G, Zhong k, Cai Z, Wang W. Abdominal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer improves clinical pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization: experiences from 330 clinical investigations. J Assist Reprod Genet 2005; 22:3-8. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-005-0813-0]
13. Li R, Zhuang GL, Cai Zm, Wang H, Zhong K, Zhou WY. Clinical analysis of ultrasound-guided embryo transfer after in vitro fertilization. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 2004; 39:180-183.
14. de Camargo Martins AM, Baruffi RL, Mauri AL, Peterson C, Oliveira JB, Contart P, et al. Ultrasound guidance is not necessary during easy embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet 2004; 21:421-425. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-004-8757-3]
15. Chen SC, Lai TH, Lee FK. The influence of abdominal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer on pregnancy rate: a preliminary report. Fertil Steril 2007; 87:1235-1237. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.026]
16. Kojima K, Nomiyama M, Kumamoto T, Matsumoto Y, Iwasaka T. Transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer improves pregnancy and implantation rates after IVF. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:2578-2582. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/16.12.2578]
17. Shamonki MI, Spandorfer SD, Roberts JE, Rosenwaks Z. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: does it improve IVF success? Fertil Steril. 2003; 80:S127-128. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(03)01212-3]
18. Rosenlund B, Sjoblom P, Hillensjo T. Pregnancy outcome related to the site of embryo deposition in the uterus. J Assist Reorod Genet 1996; 13:511-513. [DOI:10.1007/BF02066534]
19. Mirkin S, Jones EL, Mayer JF, Stadtmauer L, Gibbons WE, Oehninger S. Impact of transabdominal ultrasound guidance on performance and outcome of transcervical uterine embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet 2003; 20:318-322. [DOI:10.1023/A:1024809607966]
20. Flisser E, Grifo JA, Kery LC, Noyes N. Transabdominal ultrasound-assisted embryo transfer and pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril 2006; 85:353-357. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.08.015]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
