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

Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology

Eun-Kyung Kim¹  Dong-Hee Choi²  Hwang Kwon³ 

[1] CHA Fertility Center of Bundang CHA General Hospital, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea;Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHA Fertility Center of Bundang CHA General Hospital, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea;College of Medicine, CHA University and CHA Fertility Center of Bundang CHA General Hospital, 351 Yatap-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam 463-712, Gyeonggi-do, Korea

关键词: Endometrial cavity length;    fundal endometrium;    Relative position;    Absolute position;    Site of embryo transfer;   

Others  :  1224335
DOI  :  10.1186/s12958-015-0072-6

 received in 2015-04-08, accepted in 2015-07-03,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

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

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Kwon et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Eskandar MA, Abou-Setta AM, El-Amin M, Almushait MA, Sobande AA. Removal of cervical mucus prior to embryo transfer improves pregnancy rates in women undergoing assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007; 14:308-313.
• [2]Visschers BA, Bots RS, Peeters MF, Mol BW, van Dessel HJ. Removal of cervical mucus: effect on pregnancy rates in IVF/ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007; 15:310-315.
• [3]Strickler RC, Christianson C, Crane JP, Curato A, Knight AB, Yang V. Ultrasound guidance for human embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1985; 43:54-61.
• [4]García-Velasco JA, Isaza V, Martinez-Salazar J, Landazábal A, Requena A, Remohí J, Simón C. Transabdominal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer does not increase pregnancy rates in oocyte recipients. Fertil Steril. 2002; 78:534-539.
• [5]Buckett WM. A meta-analysis of ultrasound-guided versus clinical touch embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2003; 80:1037-1041.
• [6]Abou-Setta AM, Mansour RT, Al-Inany HG, Aboulghar MM, Aboulghar MA, Serour GI. Among women undergoing embryo transfer, is the probability of pregnancy and live birth improved with ultrasound guidance over clinical touch alone? A systemic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized trials. Fertil Steril. 2007; 88:333-341.
• [7]Abou-Setta AM, Al-Inany HG, Mansour RT, Serour GI, Aboulghar MA. Soft versus firm embryo transfer catheters for assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2005; 20:3114-3121.
• [8]Buckett WM. A review and meta-analysis of prospective trials comparing different catheters used for embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2006; 85:728-734.
• [9]al-Shawaf T, Dave R, Harper J, Linehan D, Riley P, Craft I. Transfer of embryos into the uterus: how much do technical factors affect pregnancy rates? J Assist Reprod Genet. 1993; 10:31-36.
• [10]Ghazzawi IM, Al-Hasani S, Karaki R, Souso S. Transfer technique and catheter choice influence the incidence of transcervical embryo expulsion and the outcome of IVF. Hum Reprod. 1999; 14:677-682.
• [11]Urman B, Aksoy S, Alatas C, Mercan R, Nuhoglu A, Isiklar A, Balaban B. Comparing two embryo transfer catheters. Use of a trial transfer to determine the catheter applied. J Reprod Med. 2000; 45:135-138.
• [12]Burke LM, Davenport AT, Russell GB, Deaton JL. Predictors of success after embryo transfer: experience from a single provider. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 182:1001-1004.
• [13]Saldeen P, Abou-Setta AM, Bergh T, Sundström P, Holte J. A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing two embryo transfer catheters in an ART program. Fertil Steril. 2008; 90:599-603.
• [14]Matorras R, Mendoza R, Expósito A, Rodriguez-Escudero FJ. Influence of the time interval between embryo catheter loading and discharging on the success of IVF. Hum Reprod. 2004; 19:2027-2030.
• [15]Lesny P, Killick SR, Robinson J, Raven G, Maguiness SD. Junctional zone contractions and embryo transfer: is it safe to use a tenaculum? Hum. Reprod. 1999; 14:2367-2370.
• [16]Martínez F, Coroleu B, Parriego M, Carreras O, Belil I, Parera N, Hereter L, Buxaderas R, Barri PN. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: immediate withdrawal of the catheter versus a 30 second wait. Hum. Reprod. 2001; 16:871-874.
• [17]Goudas VT, Hammitt DG, Damario MA, Session DR, Singh AP, Dumesic DA. Blood on the embryo transfer catheter is associated with decreased rates of embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy with the use of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1998; 70:878-882.
• [18]Egbase PE, al-Sharhan M, al-Othman S, al-Mutawa M, Udo EE, Grudzinskas JG. Incidence of microbial growth from the tip of the embryo transfer catheter after embryo transfer in relation to clinical pregnancy rate following in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1996; 11:1687-1689.
• [19]Moore DE, Soules MR, Klein NA, Fujimoto VY, Agnew KJ, Eschenbach DA. Bacteria in the transfer catheter tip influence the live-birth rate after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2000; 74:1118-1124.
• [20]Coroleu B, Barri PN, Carreras O, Martínez F, Parriego M, Hereter L, Parera N, Veiga A, Balasch J. The influence of the depth of embryo replacement into the uterine cavity on implantation rates after IVF: a controlled, ultrasound-guided study. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17:341-346.
• [21]Franco JG, Martins AM, Baruffi RL, Mauri AL, Petersen CG, Felipe V, Contart P, Pontes A, Oliveira JB. Best site for embryo transfer: the upper or lower half of endometrial cavity? Hum Reprod. 2004; 19:1785-1790.
• [22]Oliveira JB, Martins AM, Baruffi RL, Mauri AL, Petersen CG, Felipe V, Contart P, Pontes A, Franco Júnior JG. Increased implantation and pregnancy rates obtained by placing the tip of the transfer catheter in the central area of the endometrial cavity. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004; 9:435-441.
• [23]Abou-Setta AM. What is the best site for embryo deposition? A systematic review and meta-analysis using direct and adjusted indirect comparisons. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007; 14:611-619.
• [24]Veeck LL. Atlas of the Human Oocyte and Early Conceptus. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD; 1991.
• [25]Lewin A, Schenker JG, Avrech O, Shapira S, Safran A, Friedler S. The role of uterine straightening by passive bladder distension before embryo transfer in IVF cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1997; 14:32-34.
• [26]Minami S, Ishihara K, Araki T. Determination of blastocyst implantation site in spontaneous pregnancies using three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound. J Nippon Med Sch. 2003; 70:250-254.
• [27]Baba K, Ishihara O, Hayashi N, Saitoh M, Taya J, Kinoshita K. Where does the embryo implant after embryo transfer in humans? Fertil Steril. 2000; 73:123-125.
• [28]Kinoshita K. Clinical significance of detection time and site of early gestational sac by ultrasonography. Nihon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi. 1994; 46:102-108.
• [29]Kerin JF, Jeffrey R, Warnes GM, Cox LW, Broom TJ. A simple technique for human embryo transfer into the uterus. Lancet. 1981; 2:726-727.
• [30]Leeton J, Trounson A, Jessup D, Wood C. The technique for human embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1982; 38:156-161.
• [31]Fanchin R, Righini C, Olivennes F, Taylor S, de Ziegler D, Frydman R. Uterine contractions at the time of embryo transfer alter pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1998; 13:1968-1974.
• [32]Lesny P, Killick SR, Tetlow RL, Robinson J, Maguiness SD. Embryo transfer—can we learn anything new from the observation of junctional zone contractions? Hum Reprod. 1998; 13:1540-1546.
• [33]Woolcott R, Stanger J. Potentially important variables identified by transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1997; 12:963-966.
• [34]Pope CS, Cook EK, Arny M, Novak A, Grow DR. Influence of embryo transfer depth on in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2004; 81:51-58.
• [35]Tiras B, Polat M, Korucuoglu U, Zeyneloglu HB, Yarali H. Impact of embryo replacement depth on in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2010; 94:1341-1345.
• [36]Rovei V, Dalmasso P, Gennarelli G, Lantieri T, Basso G, Benedetto C, Revelli A. IVF outcome is optimized when embryos are replaced between 5 and 15 mm from the fundal endometrial surface: a prospective analysis on 1184 IVF cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2013;11. doi:. 10. 1186/1477-7827-11-114 webcite
• [37]Pacchiarotti A, Mohamed MA, Micara G, Tranquilli D, Linari A, Espinola SM, Aragona C. The impact of the depth of embryo replacement on IVF outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007; 24:189-193.
• [38]Nazari A, Askari HA, Check JH, O'Shaughnessy A. Embryo transfer technique as a cause of ectopic pregnancy in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1993; 60:919-921.
• [39]Frankfurter D, Trimarchi JB, Silva CP, Keefe DL. Middle to lower uterine segment embryo transfer improves implantation and pregnancy rates compared with fundal embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2004; 81:1273-1277.