OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the role of zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT) procedure in patients with repeated failure of implantation. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 141 ZIFT cycles of 132 women and 145 embryo transfer (ET) cycles of 97 women in whom five or more embryos were transferred were included in this study. Transcervical uterine embryo transfer and ZIFT cycle outcome in patients with five or more previous implantation failure were compared. Embryos were transferred by laparoscopy into the fallopian tube 24-27 h following oocytes retrieval in the ZIFT group. In the ET group, embryos were transferred transcervically on the third day following oocytes retrieval. RESULTS: The mean age was 34+/-4.9 and 34.9+/-5.0 years in ZIFT and ET group, respectively. No difference was determined between the two groups regarding the basal FSH, E2 value on the day of HCG injection and the number of oocytes retrieved or fertilized. The implantation rate was 6.5% versus 7.2%, clinical pregnancy rate was 22.7% versus 24.8% and live birth rate was 21.2% versus 16.5% in ZIFT and ET groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of ZIFT procedure in patients with repeated implantation failure is not superior to transcervical uterine embryo transfer.
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the role of zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT) procedure in patients with repeated failure of implantation. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 141 ZIFT cycles of 132 women and 145 embryo transfer (ET) cycles of 97 women in whom five or more embryos were transferred were included in this study. Transcervical uterine embryo transfer and ZIFT cycle outcome in patients with five or more previous implantation failure were compared. Embryos were transferred by laparoscopy into the fallopian tube 24-27 h following oocytes retrieval in the ZIFT group. In the ET group, embryos were transferred transcervically on the third day following oocytes retrieval. RESULTS: The mean age was 34+/-4.9 and 34.9+/-5.0 years in ZIFT and ET group, respectively. No difference was determined between the two groups regarding the basal FSH, E2 value on the day of HCG injection and the number of oocytes retrieved or fertilized. The implantation rate was 6.5% versus 7.2%, clinical pregnancy rate was 22.7% versus 24.8% and live birth rate was 21.2% versus 16.5% in ZIFT and ET groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of ZIFT procedure in patients with repeated implantation failure is not superior to transcervical uterine embryo transfer.