BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested that ultrasound-guided embryo transfer (UG-ET) may improve the outcome in IVF; however, several factors may account for the improvement in pregnancy rate. This study examines the use of ultrasound to determine the accuracy of trial transfer (TT) in preparation for ET. METHODS:Sixty-seven consecutive patients prospectively underwentUG-ET over a 2 month period. Total cavity length by US was compared with the length noted by TT. A difference of > or = 1 cm was considered significant. All embryos were placed within 1-2 cm of the fundus by US. RESULTS: Twenty patients (29.9%) had a difference of > or = 1 cm and 13 patients (19.4%) had a difference of < or = 1.5 cm. Patients with a difference of > or = 1 or > or = 1.5 cm had a significantly greater depth at transfer (P < 0.001) and uterine cavity length (P < 0.001) when compared with patients without a difference. Clinical pregnancy, implantation, delivery and overall miscarriage rates did not differ between patients with a difference of > or = 1 or > or = 1.5 cm versus no difference. There were no ectopic pregnancies. CONCLUSIONS: Nineteen percent of patients had a discrepancy of > or = 1.5 cm and approximately 30% had a difference of > or = 1 cm from TT at UG-ET, suggesting a benefit to UG-ET. A large prospective randomized trial comparing UG-ET with blind transfer is required to assess further if UG-ET should be used in all cases of ET.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested that ultrasound-guided embryo transfer (UG-ET) may improve the outcome in IVF; however, several factors may account for the improvement in pregnancy rate. This study examines the use of ultrasound to determine the accuracy of trial transfer (TT) in preparation for ET. METHODS: Sixty-seven consecutive patients prospectively underwent UG-ET over a 2 month period. Total cavity length by US was compared with the length noted by TT. A difference of > or = 1 cm was considered significant. All embryos were placed within 1-2 cm of the fundus by US. RESULTS: Twenty patients (29.9%) had a difference of > or = 1 cm and 13 patients (19.4%) had a difference of < or = 1.5 cm. Patients with a difference of > or = 1 or > or = 1.5 cm had a significantly greater depth at transfer (P < 0.001) and uterine cavity length (P < 0.001) when compared with patients without a difference. Clinical pregnancy, implantation, delivery and overall miscarriage rates did not differ between patients with a difference of > or = 1 or > or = 1.5 cm versus no difference. There were no ectopic pregnancies. CONCLUSIONS: Nineteen percent of patients had a discrepancy of > or = 1.5 cm and approximately 30% had a difference of > or = 1 cm from TT at UG-ET, suggesting a benefit to UG-ET. A large prospective randomized trial comparing UG-ET with blind transfer is required to assess further if UG-ET should be used in all cases of ET.
Authors: Prapti Singh; Marli Amin; Erica Keller; Ariel Simerman; Paul Aguilera; Christine Briton-Jones; David L Hill; David H Abbott; Gregorio Chazenbalk; Daniel A Dumesic Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Wellington de Paula Martins; Rosana Maria dos Reis; Rui Alberto Ferriani; Carlos Henrique Medeiros de Araújo; Carolina Oliveira Nastri; Francisco Mauad Filho Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2006-05-19 Impact factor: 3.412