Cannulation of a resistant internal os with the malleable outer sheath of a coaxial soft embryo transfer catheter does not affect in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcome
Document Type
Journal Article
Publication Date
11-1-2004
Journal
Fertility and Sterility
Volume
82
Issue
5
DOI
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.04.044
Keywords
IVF-ET, trial embryo transfer, malleable outer sheath, blood, embryo transfer catheter, clinical pregnancy rate, implantation
Abstract
To assess the impact of cannulation of a resistant cervical os with the outer malleable sheath of a double-lumen, soft ET catheter on IVF-ET outcomes. Retrospective cohort study. University-based IVF center. One hundred forty-two patients undergoing 142 ETs. Trial ultrasound-guided ET at all transfers, leaving the malleable outer sheath in situ when the soft inner catheter could not negotiate the internal os. Implantation rate and clinical pregnancy rate. In 102 ETs (71.8%), the soft inner sheath easily negotiated the internal os (group 1). Forty ETs (28.2%) required cannulation of resistant internal ora with the outer sheath of the trial catheter (group 2). Implantation rates (35% vs. 32% in groups 1 and 2, respectively) and clinical pregnancy rates (50% vs. 45%) were not significantly different between groups. Blood was present on the transfer catheter after ET more frequently in group 2 than in group 1 (55% vs. 15%); however, neither the implantation rate nor the clinical pregnancy rate were affected by the presence of blood. Cannulation of a resistant internal os by the malleable outer sheath and blood on the transfer catheter after ET do not have an adverse effect on implantation rate or clinical pregnancy rate. © 2004 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
APA Citation
Silberstein, T., Weitzen, S., Frankfurter, D., Trimarchi, J., Keefe, D., & Plosker, S. (2004). Cannulation of a resistant internal os with the malleable outer sheath of a coaxial soft embryo transfer catheter does not affect in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcome. Fertility and Sterility, 82 (5). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.04.044