Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF )
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 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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hammitt, D.G.
Right arrow Articles by Donovan, J.F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hammitt, D.G.
Right arrow Articles by Donovan, J.F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 5, No. 8, pp. 947-954, 1990
© 1990 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

other

Comparison of concurrent pregnancy rates for in-vitro fertilization–embryo transfer, pronuclear stage embryo transfer and gamete intra-Fallopian transfer

D.G. Hammitt1,2,3, C.H. Syrop1, S.J. Hahn1, D.L. Walker1, C.R. Butkowski1 and J.F. Donovan2

1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Iowa City, 1A 52242, USA 2Department of Urology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City, IA 52242, USA

Correspondence: 3To whom correspondence should be addressed

Concurrent pregnancy and implantation (sacs/embryos transferred) rates were compared for 84, 77 and 49 cases of in-vitro fertilization–embryo transfer (TVF–ET), pronuclear stage embryo transfer (PROST) and gamete intra-Fallopian transfer (GIFT), respectively. All cases reported occurred during an 18-month interval since the initiation of PROST by our programme. Leuprolide acetate was used with follicle stimulating hormone and human menopausal gonadotrophin for follicular stimulation of all but donor oocyte cases (n = 9). Clinical pregnancy (per transfer) and implantation rates were significantly higher (P < 0.03) for PROST (52.4%, 20.2%) in comparison with IVF–ET (26.9%, 11.4%). Rates for GIFT (48.9%, 18.4%) were not significantly higher (P = 0.10, 0.14) than for IVF—ET. This was probably due to the lower number of GIFT than PROST procedures performed. The total pregnancy rate for GIFT (biochemical, ectopk and clinical combined) was significantly greater (P < 0.05) than for IVF—ET. Pregnancy and implantation rates for PROST and GIFT were similar. These results support the use of PROST rather than IVF—ET for all cases in which the woman has one functional Fallopian tube. Furthermore, to maintain equivalent rates of pregnancy with PROST and GIFT, it is suggested that GIFT should not be used for cases of male-factor infertility without first documenting normal rates of in-vitro fertilization with PROST.

Key words: GIFT/human infertility/TVF/PROST


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
M.-L. Windt, T.F. Kruger, K. Coetzee, and C.J. Lombard
Comparative analysis of pregnancy rates after the transfer of early dividing embryos versus slower dividing embryos
Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2004; 19(5): 1155 - 1162.
[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.