Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Evans, J.
Right arrow Articles by Hood, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Evans, J.
Right arrow Articles by Hood, K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 14, No. 1, 80-82, January 1999
© 1999 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

A possible effect of different light sources on pregnancy rates following gamete intra-Fallopian transfer

J. Evans1,3, C. Wells2 and K. Hood2

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Llandough Hospital, Penarth CF64 2XX and 2 University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK

A retrospective study of 34 sequential gamete intraFallopian transfer (GIFT) procedures suggested a significant effect on pregnancy rates associated with the different laparoscopic light sources, with a pregnancy rate of 50% in 22 cycles using a halogen light source and 9% in 12 cycles using a xenon light source. Other explanatory variables were explored, but none was to have a significant effect on the pregnancy rate. Further investigation revealed that the xenon light source emitted more ultraviolet light than the conventional halogen light source—suggesting a possible detrimental effect of ultraviolet light on the gametes in the GIFT procedure.

Key words: gamete intra-Fallopian transfer/light/oocytes/ultraviolet radiation

3 To whom correspondence should be addressed


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
R. Matorras, R. Mendoza, A. Exposito, and F.J. Rodriguez-Escudero
Influence of the time interval between embryo catheter loading and discharging on the success of IVF
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2004; 19(9): 2027 - 2030.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M. Pellicano, F. Zullo, A. Fiorentino, G. A. Tommaselli, S. Palomba, and C. Nappi
Conscious sedation versus general anaesthesia for minilaparoscopic gamete intra-Fallopian transfer: a prospective randomized study
Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2001; 16(11): 2295 - 2297.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
U.I.O. Ezeh, S. Shepherd, H.D.M. Moore, and I.D. Cooke
Morbidity and cost-effectiveness analysis of outpatient analgesia versus general anaesthesia for testicular sperm extraction in men with azoospermia due to defects in spermatogenesis
Hum. Reprod., February 1, 1999; 14(2): 321 - 328.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.