OBJECTIVE: 1.To describe the standardization process and protocols of the ET method at our center. 2.To compare the performance of non-echogenic catheters with echogenic catheters during ultrasound-guided ET. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 2630 ET performed at UNIFERTES during 1997-2014, to describe standardization process and to compare the percentage of difficult ET between echogenic and non-echogenic catheters. We tested 17 non-echogenic and three echogenic catheters. RESULTS: Many variables were associated with the ease of ET: informed patients, waiting time for the procedure, speculum use, clinical touch, uterine contractions, cervical mucus removal, presence of blood before or after the procedure, full bladder, ultrasound guidance, uterocervical angle, mock transfer, catheter type (soft or hard, echogenic or non-echogenic, with stylet or not), catheter loading technique, duration of embryo loading (time interval since the embryos were removed from the incubator for loading until the catheter is passed to the physician), transfer procedure (time interval from the catheter was handed to the physician until the embryos were discharged in the uterus), catheter tip placement, retained embryos, bed rest after ET, operator´s proficiency. The diversity of catheters used and the percentage of difficult transfers decrease as the use of echogenic catheters increases. This process is necessary to minimize variation, ensure high quality, safe and evidence-based practice, and improve outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To standardize the ET method allowed a quicker and easier transfer. The use of echogenic catheters simplified ET procedures guided by abdominal ultrasound.
OBJECTIVE: 1.To describe the standardization process and protocols of the ET method at our center. 2.To compare the performance of non-echogenic catheters with echogenic catheters during ultrasound-guided ET. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 2630 ET performed at UNIFERTES during 1997-2014, to describe standardization process and to compare the percentage of difficult ET between echogenic and non-echogenic catheters. We tested 17 non-echogenic and three echogenic catheters. RESULTS: Many variables were associated with the ease of ET: informed patients, waiting time for the procedure, speculum use, clinical touch, uterine contractions, cervical mucus removal, presence of blood before or after the procedure, full bladder, ultrasound guidance, uterocervical angle, mock transfer, catheter type (soft or hard, echogenic or non-echogenic, with stylet or not), catheter loading technique, duration of embryo loading (time interval since the embryos were removed from the incubator for loading until the catheter is passed to the physician), transfer procedure (time interval from the catheter was handed to the physician until the embryos were discharged in the uterus), catheter tip placement, retained embryos, bed rest after ET, operator´s proficiency. The diversity of catheters used and the percentage of difficult transfers decrease as the use of echogenic catheters increases. This process is necessary to minimize variation, ensure high quality, safe and evidence-based practice, and improve outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To standardize the ET method allowed a quicker and easier transfer. The use of echogenic catheters simplified ET procedures guided by abdominal ultrasound.