Ultrasound Guidance in Embryo Transfer

  • Alberto Revelli
  • Tomer Tur-Kaspa
  • Edmond Confino


A quick, atraumatic, and technically accurate embryo transfer (ET) has always been regarded as quintessential for the achievement of high pregnancy rates in human IVF. There are several studied factors that may affect the success of ET: ease of the transfer, location of the embryo deposition, type of catheter, and the level of experience of the physician performing the transfer. Ultrasound (US) guidance allows to discharge the embryos in the optimal area of the uterine cavity, 1.0–1.5 cm from the fundus, and was shown in prospective randomized studies as well as meta-analysis to significantly increase the rate of easy transfers, embryo implantation, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates vs. clinical touch ET. The use of either transabdominal or transvaginal US imaging results in similar success rates. US observation of the marker bubbles immediately after ET has an obvious psychological value to the patients, reaffirms optimal embryo deposition, and enables physicians to teach ET to young doctors without a decline in IVF results. The disadvantages of US guidance in ET are the need for an assistant and the inconvenience for patients caused by a full bladder. It is highly recommended for the reader to review the 2017 ASRM practice guidelines for ET. This chapter will review the data available today on the important role of US guidance in ET.


Embryo transfer (ET) Ultrasound guidance ET ART outcome Frozen embryo transfer (FET) Trail transfer Embryo transfer technique 


  1. 1.
    Tarlatzis BC, Laufer N, Decherney AH. The use of ovarian ultrasonography in monitoring ovulation induction. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1984;1:226–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peluso JJ, Damien M, Nulsen JC, Luciano AA. Identification of follicles with fertilizable oocytes by sequential ultrasound measurements during follicular development. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1990;7:304–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Performing the embryo transfer: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:882–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Uyar A, Bener A, Ciray HN, Bahceci M. Physician experience in performing embryo transfers may affect outcome. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1860–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coroleu B, Barri PN, Varreras O, Martinez 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;17:341–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cenksoy PO, Fıcıcıoglu C, Yesiladali M, Akcin OA, Kaspar C. The importance of the length of uterine cavity, the position of the tip of the inner catheter and the distance between the fundal endometrial surface and the air bubbles as determinants of the pregnancy rate in IVF cycles. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;172:46–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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;81:1273–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pope CS, Cook EKD, Arny M, Novak A, Grow D. Influence of embryo transfer depth on in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer outcome. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:51–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rovei V, Dalmasso P, Gennarelli G, Lantieri T, Basso G, Benedetto C, et al. 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;11:114–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alvero R, Hearns-Stokes RM, Catherino WH, Leondires MP, Segars JH. The presence of blood in the transfer catheter negatively influences outcome at embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:1848–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fanchin R, Righini C, Olivennes F, Taylor S, de Ziegler D, Frydman R. Uterine contractions at time of embryo transfer alter pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:1968–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lesny P, Killick SR, Tetlow RL, Robinson J, Maginess SD. Embryo transfer - can we learn anything from the observation of junctional zone contractions? Hum Reprod. 1998;13:1540–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gera PS, Allemand MC, Tatpati LL, Galanits TM, Morbeck D, Coddington CC. Role of saline infusion sonography in uterine evaluation before frozen embryo transfer cycle. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:562–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sankpal RS, Confino E, Matzel A, Cohen LS. Investigation of the uterine cavity and fallopian tubes using three-dimensional saline sonohysterosalpingography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001;73:125–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yoldemir T, Erenus M. Does the timing of mock embryo transfer trial improve implantation in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles? Gynecol Endocrinol. 2011;27:396–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mansour R, Aboulghar M, Serour G. Dummy embryo transfer: a technique that minimizes the problems of embryo transfer and improves the pregnancy rate in human in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1990;54:678–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Henne MB, Milki AA. Uterine position at real embryo transfer compared with mock embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:570–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Strickler RC, Christianson C, Crane JP, Curato A, Knight AB, Yang V. Ultrasound guidance for human embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1985;43:54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sallam HN, Sadek SS. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:1042–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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;17:1762–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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;88:333–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brown J1, Buckingham K, Buckett W, Abou-Setta AM. Ultrasound versus ‘clinical touch’ for catheter guidance during embryo transfer in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(3):CD006107.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Flisser E, Grifo JA. Is what we clearly see really so obvious? Ultrasonography and transcervical embryo transfer--a review. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Buckett WM. A meta-analysis of ultrasound-guided versus clinical touch embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:1037–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Teixeira DM, Dassunção LA, Vieira CV, Barbosa MA, Coelho Neto MA, Nastri CO, Martins WP. Ultrasound guidance during embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45:139–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tiras B, Korucuoglu U, Polat M, Saltik A, Zeyneloglu HB, Yarali H. Effect of blood and mucus on the success rates of embryo transfers. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;165:239–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Allahbadia GN, Kadam K, Gandhi G, Arora S, Valliappan JB, Joshi A, et al. Embryo transfer using the SureView catheter-beacon in the womb. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:344–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kato O, Takatsuka R, Asch RH. Transvaginal-transmyometrial embryo transfer: the Towako method; experiences of 104 cases. Fertil Steril. 1993;59:51–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Groutz A, Lessing JB, Wolf Y, Azem F, Yovel I, Amit A. Comparison of transmyometrial and transcervical embryo transfer in patients with previously failed in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles and/or cervical stenosis. Fertil Steril. 1997;67:1073–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hurley VA, Osborn JC, Leoni MA, Leeton J. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: a controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 1991;55:559–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Woolcott R, Stanger J. Potentially important variables identified by transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:963–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kojima K, Nomiyama M, Kumamoto T, Matsumoto Y, Iwasaka T. Transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer improves pregnancy and implantation rates after IVF. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2578–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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;77:769–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Porat N, Boehnlein LM, Schouweiler CM, Kang J, Lindheim SR. Interim analysis of a randomized clinical trial comparing abdominal versus transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2010;36:384–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bodri D, Colodrón M, García D, Obradors A, Vernaeve V, Coll O. Transvaginal versus transabdominal ultrasound guidance for embryo transfer in donor oocyte recipients: a randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2263–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lambers MJ, Dogan E, Kostelijk H, Lens JW, Schats R, Hompes PGA. Ultrasonographic-guided embryo transfer does not enhance pregnancy rates compared with embryo transfer based on previous uterine length measurement. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:867–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Maldonado LG, Ajzen SA, Busato WC, Iaconelli A Jr, Bibancos M, Borges E Jr. Impact of previous hysterossonometry on embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:S364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Maldonado LG, Aoki T, Busato W, Pasqualotto FF, Iaconelli A Jr, Borges E Jr. Embryo transfer based on previous uterine length measurement: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:i99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Revelli A, Rovei V, Dalmasso P, Gennarelli G, Racca C, Evangelista F, Benedetto C. Large randomized trial comparing transabdominal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer with a technique based on uterine length measurement before embryo transfer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48:289–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Woolcott R, Stanger J. Ultrasound tracking of the movement of embryo-associated air bubbles on standing after transfer. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:2107–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Confino E, Zhang J, Risquez F. Air bubble migration is a random event post embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24:223–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shah DK, Missmer SA, Correia KF, Racowsky C, Ginsburg E. Efficacy of intrauterine inseminations as a training modality for performing embryo transfer in reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellowship programs. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(2):386–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Harris ID, Styer AK, Petrozza JC. Ultrasonographer experience does not impact outcomes following ultrasound-guided embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:918–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. ASRM standard embryo transfer protocol template: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:897–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Heitmann RJ, Hill MJ, Csokmay JM, Pilgrim J, AH DC, Deering S. Embryo transfer simulation improves pregnancy rates and decreases time to proficiency in reproductive endocrinology and infertility fellow embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1166–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ebner T, Yaman C, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Polz W, Tews G. The ineffective loading process of the embryo transfer catheter alters implantation and pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:630–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mains L, Van Voorhis BJ. Optimizing the technique of embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:785–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lee MS, Cardozo ER, Karmon AE, Wright DL, Toth TL. Impact of transfer time on pregnancy outcomes in frozen-embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:467–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Saravelos SH, Kong GW, Chung JP, Mak JS, Chung CH, Cheung LP, Li TC. A prospective randomized controlled trial of 3D versus 2D ultrasound-guided embryo transfer in women undergoing ART treatment. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2255–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alberto Revelli
    • 1
  • Tomer Tur-Kaspa
    • 2
  • Edmond Confino
    • 3
  1. 1.Sant’Anna Hospital, University of Turin, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyTurinItaly
  2. 2.Wesleyan UniversityMiddletownUSA
  3. 3.Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations