Abstract
Purpose : To determine the impact of transabdominal ultrasound guidance on embryo transfer during IVF therapy.
Methods : Retrospective analysis of 823 consecutive embryo transfers. Three hundred and sixty-seven procedures performed with transabdominal ultrasound guidance were compared to 456 cases performed with the “clinical touch” method.
Results : Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer yielded higher, but not statistically significant, clinical pregnancy (48% vs. 44%) and implantation rates (22% vs. 20%). The incidence of multiple pregnancies, ectopic and multiple pregnancy rates were similar. The frequency of negative factors typically associated with difficult transfers, such as requirement of use of tenaculum, and presence of blood or mucus in the catheter tip, were significantly lower in the ultrasound-guided group in comparison with the clinical touch group. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer was associated with a significantly increased easiness of transfer performance; 95% of the transfers were rated as very easy in the ultrasound-guidance group compared to 87% in the clinical touch group. The use of a soft pass catheter was the only variable independently and significantly associated with pregnancy success (odds ratio = 2.74).
Conclusion(s) : Ultrasound-guidance facilitates embryo transfer and in combination with the use of a soft catheter should be implemented to optimize embryo transfer results.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Mansour RT, Aboulghar MA: Optimizing the embryo transfer technique. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1149-1153
Cohen J: How to avoid multiple pregnancies in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 1998;13(Suppl. 3):197-214
Karande VC, Morris R, Chapman C, Rinehart J, Gleicher N: Impact of the “physician factor” on pregnancy rates in a large assisted reproductive technology program: Do too many cooks spoil the broth? Fertil Steril 1999;71:1001-1009
Hearns-Stokes RM, Miller BT, Scott L, Creuss D, Chakraborty PK, Segars JH: Pregnancy rates after embryo transfer depend on the provider at embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2000;74:80-86
Strickler RC, Christianson C, Crane JP, Curato A, Knight AB, Yang V: Ultrasound guidance for human embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1985;43:54-61
Leong M, Leung C, Tucker M, Wong C, Chan H. Ultrasound-assisted embryo transfer. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1986;3:383-385
Lindheim SR, Cohen MA, Sauer MV: Ultrasound guided embryo transfer significantly improves pregnancy rates in women undergoing oocyte donation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1999;66:281-284
Wood EG, Batzer FR, Go KJ, Gutmann JN, Corson SL. Ultrasound-guided soft catheter embryo transfers will improve pregnancy rates in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2000;15:107-112
Prapas Y, Prapas N, Hatziparasidou A, Vanderzwalmen P,Nijs M, Prapa S, Vlassis G: Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer maximizes the IVF results on day 3 and day 4 embryo transfer but has no impact on day 5. Hum Reprod 2001;16:1904-1908
Coroleu B, Carreras O, Veiga A, et al.: Embryo transfer under ultrasound guidance improves pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2000;15:616-620
Hurley VA, Osborn JC, Leoni MA, Leeton J: Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: A controlled trial. Fertil Steril 1991;55:559-562.
al Shawaf T, Yang D, al Magid Y, Seaton A, Iketubosin F, Craft I: Ultrasonic monitoring during replacement of frozen/thawed embryos in natural and hormone replacement cycles. Hum Reprod 1993;8:2068-2074
Kan AK, Abdalla HI, Gafar AH, et al.: Embryo transfer: Ultrasound-guided versus clinical touch. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1259-1261
Tang OS, Ng EH, So WW, Ho PC: Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: A prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2310-2315
Anderson RE, Nugent NL, Gregg AT, Nunn SL, Behr BR: Transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer improves outcome in patients with previous failed in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 2002;77:769-775
Oehninger S, Veeck L, Lanzendorf S, Maloney M, Toner J, Muasher S: Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: Achievement of high pregnancy rates in couples with severe male factor infertility is dependent primarily upon female and not male factors. Fertil Steril 1995;64:977-981
Veeck, LL: An Atlas of Human Gametes and Conceptuses. New York, Parthenon, 1998, pp 40-45
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
Schulz KF, Grimes DA: Case-control studies: Research in reverse. Lancet 2002Feb 2;359:431-434
Schoolcraft WB, Surrey ES, Gardner DK: Embryo transfer: Techniques and variables affecting success. Fertil Steril 2001;76:863-870
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
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
Dorn C, Reinsberg J, Schlebusch H, Prietl G, van der Ven H, Krebs D: Serum oxytocin concentration during embryo transfer procedure. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1999;87:77-80
Kovacs GT. What factors are important for successful embryo transfer after in-vitro fertilization? Hum Reprod 1999;14:590-592
Matorras R, Urquijo E, Mendoza R, Corcostegui B, Exposito A, Rodriguez-Escudero FJ. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer improves pregnancy rates and increases the frequency of easy transfers. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1762-1766
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mirkin, S., Jones, E.L., Mayer, J.F. et al. Impact of Transabdominal Ultrasound Guidance on Performance and Outcome of Transcervical Uterine Embryo Transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet 20, 318–322 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024809607966
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024809607966