Cargando…

Absolute position versus relative position in embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis revealed that embryo placement 20 mm from the fundal endometrial surface resulted in higher pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, and live birth rate compared with placement 10 mm from the fundal endometrial surface. Pregnancy and implantation rates according to relative...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kwon, Hwang, Choi, Dong-Hee, Kim, Eun-Kyung
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4517417/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26216410
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12958-015-0072-6
_version_ 1782383187222069248
author Kwon, Hwang
Choi, Dong-Hee
Kim, Eun-Kyung
author_facet Kwon, Hwang
Choi, Dong-Hee
Kim, Eun-Kyung
author_sort Kwon, Hwang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis revealed that embryo placement 20 mm from the fundal endometrial surface resulted in higher pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, and live birth rate compared with placement 10 mm from the fundal endometrial surface. Pregnancy and implantation rates according to relative position were higher when the catheter tip was positioned close to the middle of the endometrial cavity. The aim of the current study is to evaluate differences in implantation and pregnancy rates if the site of embryo transfer is 2 cm distance from the fundal endometrium (DFE) compared to the midpoint of the endometrial cavity length (ECL). METHODS: Patients were randomized to one of two groups: in group A (n = 98, 98 IVF-ET cycles), the embryo transfer catheter tip was positioned 2 cm DFE, while that in group B (n = 97, 97 IVF-ET cycles) was positioned at the midpoint of the ECL. We compared pregnancy outcomes of implantation rate, chemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, and miscarriage rate in the two groups. RESULTS: Analysis of implantation rate (19.5 ± 27.7 vs. 21.7 ± 32.6; p = 0.6), chemical pregnancy rate (51 % vs. 50.5 %; p = 0.94), clinical pregnancy rate (35.7 % vs. 38.1 %; p = 0.73), ongoing pregnancy rate (31.6 % vs. 30.9 %; p = 0.92), ectopic pregnancy rate (8.6 % vs. 2.7 %; p = 0.35), and miscarriage rate (11.4 % vs. 16.2 %; 0.74) revealed comparable results for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation and pregnancy rates were not influenced by the site of the ET catheter tip being 2 cm DFE compared to at the midpoint of the ECL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN15972342
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4517417
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45174172015-07-29 Absolute position versus relative position in embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial Kwon, Hwang Choi, Dong-Hee Kim, Eun-Kyung Reprod Biol Endocrinol Research BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis revealed that embryo placement 20 mm from the fundal endometrial surface resulted in higher pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, and live birth rate compared with placement 10 mm from the fundal endometrial surface. Pregnancy and implantation rates according to relative position were higher when the catheter tip was positioned close to the middle of the endometrial cavity. The aim of the current study is to evaluate differences in implantation and pregnancy rates if the site of embryo transfer is 2 cm distance from the fundal endometrium (DFE) compared to the midpoint of the endometrial cavity length (ECL). METHODS: Patients were randomized to one of two groups: in group A (n = 98, 98 IVF-ET cycles), the embryo transfer catheter tip was positioned 2 cm DFE, while that in group B (n = 97, 97 IVF-ET cycles) was positioned at the midpoint of the ECL. We compared pregnancy outcomes of implantation rate, chemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, and miscarriage rate in the two groups. RESULTS: Analysis of implantation rate (19.5 ± 27.7 vs. 21.7 ± 32.6; p = 0.6), chemical pregnancy rate (51 % vs. 50.5 %; p = 0.94), clinical pregnancy rate (35.7 % vs. 38.1 %; p = 0.73), ongoing pregnancy rate (31.6 % vs. 30.9 %; p = 0.92), ectopic pregnancy rate (8.6 % vs. 2.7 %; p = 0.35), and miscarriage rate (11.4 % vs. 16.2 %; 0.74) revealed comparable results for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation and pregnancy rates were not influenced by the site of the ET catheter tip being 2 cm DFE compared to at the midpoint of the ECL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN15972342 BioMed Central 2015-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC4517417/ /pubmed/26216410 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12958-015-0072-6 Text en © Kwon et al. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Kwon, Hwang
Choi, Dong-Hee
Kim, Eun-Kyung
Absolute position versus relative position in embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial
title Absolute position versus relative position in embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial
title_full Absolute position versus relative position in embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Absolute position versus relative position in embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Absolute position versus relative position in embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial
title_short Absolute position versus relative position in embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial
title_sort absolute position versus relative position in embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4517417/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26216410
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12958-015-0072-6
work_keys_str_mv AT kwonhwang absolutepositionversusrelativepositioninembryotransferarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT choidonghee absolutepositionversusrelativepositioninembryotransferarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT kimeunkyung absolutepositionversusrelativepositioninembryotransferarandomizedcontrolledtrial