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 (34)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Matorras, R.
Right arrow Articles by Rodríguez-Escudero, F.J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Matorras, R.
Right arrow Articles by Rodríguez-Escudero, F.J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 17, No. 7, 1762-1766, July 2002
© 2002 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer improves pregnancy rates and increases the frequency of easy transfers

R. Matorras1,2,3, E. Urquijo1, R. Mendoza1, B. Corcóstegui1, A. Expósito1 and F.J. Rodríguez-Escudero1,2

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital of Cruces, and 2 País Vasco University, Baracaldo, Vizcaya, Spain

BACKGROUND: Recent reports have suggested that ultrasound (US) guidance during embryo transfer might improve pregnancy rates. METHODS: A prospective randomized (computer-generated random table) trial was performed to compare embryo transfer under abdominal US guidance (n = 255 women) with clinical touch embryo transfer (n = 260). RESULTS: The clinical pregnancy rate was 26.3% (67/255) in the US-guided transfer group compared with 18.1% (47/260) in the clinical touch transfer group (P < 0.05). The implantation rate was 11.1% (100/903) in the US group compared with 7.5% (66/884) in the clinical touch group (P < 0.05). US-guided transfer was associated with a decrease in the difficulty of the transfers: 97% of transfers were easy in the US-guided group compared with 81% in the clinical touch group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: US-guided embryo transfer increased pregnancy and implantation rates in IVF cycles, as well as the frequency of easy transfers. It is suggested that the decrease in cervical and uterine trauma can play a role in the increase in pregnancy rates associated with US-guided transfer. It is recommended that embryo transfer should be performed under US guidance.

Key words: embryo transfer/IVF/meta-analysis/pregnancy rate/ultrasound

3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: María Diaz de Haro 7, 6 iz, 48013 Bilbao, Spain. E-mail: rmatorras{at}hcru.osakidetza.net


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
A. J. Drakeley, A. Jorgensen, J. Sklavounos, T. Aust, R. Gazvani, P. Williamson, and C. R. Kingsland
A randomized controlled clinical trial of 2295 ultrasound-guided embryo transfers
Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2008; 23(5): 1101 - 1106.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
I.P. Kosmas, R. Janssens, L. De Munck, H. Al Turki, J. Van der Elst, H. Tournaye, and P. Devroey
Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer does not offer any benefit in clinical outcome: a randomized controlled trial
Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2007; 22(5): 1327 - 1334.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
S. Dias, R. McNamee, and A. Vail
Evidence of improving quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in subfertility
Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2006; 21(10): 2617 - 2627.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
B. Coroleu, P. N. Barri, O. Carreras, I. Belil, R. Buxaderas, A. Veiga, and J. Balasch
Effect of using an echogenic catheter for ultrasound-guided embryo transfer in an IVF programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled study
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2006; 21(7): 1809 - 1815.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
M. I. Shamonki, G. L. Schattman, S. D. Spandorfer, P. H. Chung, and Z. Rosenwaks
Ultrasound-guided trial transfer may be beneficial in preparation for an IVF cycle
Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2005; 20(10): 2844 - 2849.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
M. I. Shamonki, S. D. Spandorfer, and Z. Rosenwaks
Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer and the accuracy of trial embryo transfer
Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2005; 20(3): 709 - 716.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
A.R. Thornhill, C.E. deDie-Smulders, J.P. Geraedts, J.C. Harper, G.L. Harton, S.A. Lavery, C. Moutou, M.D. Robinson, A.G. Schmutzler, P.N. Scriven, et al.
ESHRE PGD Consortium 'Best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)'
Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2005; 20(1): 35 - 48.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
B. Coroleu
The influence of the depth of embryo replacement into the uterine cavity on implantation rates after IVF: a controlled, ultrasound-guided study
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2003; 18(4): 889 - 890.
[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.