Lanlan Fang1, Yingpu Sun, Yingchun Su, Yihong Guo. 1. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the advantages of 3-dimensional (3D) sonography in embryo transfer. METHODS: With the use of 2-dimensional (2D) and 3D sonography to measure the transfer distance from the fundus (TDF), 319 patients were allocated into 4 groups according to the disparity between 2D and 3D images: group 1 showed disparity of less than 3 mm; group 2 showed disparity of 3 to 5 mm; group 3 showed disparity of 6 to 9 mm; and group 4 showed disparity of 10 mm or greater. The general characteristics and pregnancy outcomes were compared among the 4 groups. RESULTS: For 140 patients, the TDF measured by 2D sonography was different from that measured by 3D sonography, with a positive to negative range of 3 to 13 mm. Compared with the first 3 groups, the clinical pregnancy and implantation rates were lowest in group 4 (7.7% versus 34.1%, 38.1%, and 40%; 3.6% versus 18.2%, 21.2%, and 22.2%; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 2D sonography, uterine cavity and catheter placement may be better achieved with 3D sonography, which would improve the embryo transfer technique.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the advantages of 3-dimensional (3D) sonography in embryo transfer. METHODS: With the use of 2-dimensional (2D) and 3D sonography to measure the transfer distance from the fundus (TDF), 319 patients were allocated into 4 groups according to the disparity between 2D and 3D images: group 1 showed disparity of less than 3 mm; group 2 showed disparity of 3 to 5 mm; group 3 showed disparity of 6 to 9 mm; and group 4 showed disparity of 10 mm or greater. The general characteristics and pregnancy outcomes were compared among the 4 groups. RESULTS: For 140 patients, the TDF measured by 2D sonography was different from that measured by 3D sonography, with a positive to negative range of 3 to 13 mm. Compared with the first 3 groups, the clinical pregnancy and implantation rates were lowest in group 4 (7.7% versus 34.1%, 38.1%, and 40%; 3.6% versus 18.2%, 21.2%, and 22.2%; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 2D sonography, uterine cavity and catheter placement may be better achieved with 3D sonography, which would improve the embryo transfer technique.