The Effect of Uterine Length Measurement before Embryo Transfer versus Transabdominal Ultrasound-Guided Embryo Transfer on FET Cycle Outcome: A Randomised Clinical Trial.

IF 2.3 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY International Journal of Fertility & Sterility Pub Date : 2024-07-13 DOI:10.22074/ijfs.2023.2000790.1460
Fereshteh Bahrami, Maryam Eftekhar, Nasim Tabibnejad
{"title":"The Effect of Uterine Length Measurement before Embryo Transfer versus Transabdominal Ultrasound-Guided Embryo Transfer on FET Cycle Outcome: A Randomised Clinical Trial.","authors":"Fereshteh Bahrami, Maryam Eftekhar, Nasim Tabibnejad","doi":"10.22074/ijfs.2023.2000790.1460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Embryo transfer (ET) is an important step in assisted reproductive technology. Uterine length measurement before ET (ULMbET) enables the determination of catheter length and anatomical variation before the ET. Therefore, in this study, we aim to compare ULMbET and transabdominal ultrasound-guided ET (TAUGET).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This open-label randomised clinical trial enrolled 264 women who were scheduled for frozen- thawed ET (FET) cycles. The women were randomised to the ULMbET or TAUGET group for ET. The primary outcome of this study was clinical pregnancy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 132 women were randomly assigned to the ULMbET group and 132 women to the TAUGET group. However, four women in the ULMbET group did not receive the allocated method after randomisation. Finally, 128 women from the ULMbET group and 132 women from the TAUGET group were assessed. No statistically significant differences existed in chemical pregnancy rate (31.3 vs. 36.4%, P=0.384), clinical pregnancy rate (23.4 vs. 28%, P=0.397), and implantation rate (15 vs. 17.8%, P=0.401) between the ULMbET and TAUGET groups, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this clinical trial show no differences in pregnancy outcomes in FET cycles following ULMbET and TAUGET (registration number: IRCT20110509006420N240).</p>","PeriodicalId":14080,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Fertility & Sterility","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11263847/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Fertility & Sterility","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22074/ijfs.2023.2000790.1460","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Embryo transfer (ET) is an important step in assisted reproductive technology. Uterine length measurement before ET (ULMbET) enables the determination of catheter length and anatomical variation before the ET. Therefore, in this study, we aim to compare ULMbET and transabdominal ultrasound-guided ET (TAUGET).

Materials and methods: This open-label randomised clinical trial enrolled 264 women who were scheduled for frozen- thawed ET (FET) cycles. The women were randomised to the ULMbET or TAUGET group for ET. The primary outcome of this study was clinical pregnancy.

Results: A total of 132 women were randomly assigned to the ULMbET group and 132 women to the TAUGET group. However, four women in the ULMbET group did not receive the allocated method after randomisation. Finally, 128 women from the ULMbET group and 132 women from the TAUGET group were assessed. No statistically significant differences existed in chemical pregnancy rate (31.3 vs. 36.4%, P=0.384), clinical pregnancy rate (23.4 vs. 28%, P=0.397), and implantation rate (15 vs. 17.8%, P=0.401) between the ULMbET and TAUGET groups, respectively.

Conclusion: The results of this clinical trial show no differences in pregnancy outcomes in FET cycles following ULMbET and TAUGET (registration number: IRCT20110509006420N240).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
胚胎移植前子宫长度测量与经腹超声引导胚胎移植对 FET 周期结果的影响:随机临床试验。
背景:胚胎移植(ET)是辅助生殖技术的重要步骤。ET前的子宫长度测量(ULMbET)可在ET前确定导管长度和解剖变异。因此,在本研究中,我们旨在比较 ULMbET 和经腹超声引导 ET(TAUGET):这项开放标签随机临床试验招募了264名计划进行冷冻解冻ET(FET)周期的女性。这些妇女被随机分配到 ULMbET 或 TAUGET 组进行 ET。研究的主要结果是临床妊娠:共有 132 名妇女被随机分配到 ULMbET 组,132 名妇女被随机分配到 TAUGET 组。然而,4 名 ULMbET 组妇女在随机分配后没有接受所分配的方法。最后,对 128 名 ULMbET 组妇女和 132 名 TAUGET 组妇女进行了评估。ULMbET组和TAUGET组在化学妊娠率(31.3% vs. 36.4%,P=0.384)、临床妊娠率(23.4% vs. 28%,P=0.397)和植入率(15% vs. 17.8%,P=0.401)方面分别没有明显的统计学差异:该临床试验结果显示,ULMbET 和 TAUGET(注册号:IRCT20110509006420N240)后的 FET 周期妊娠结局无差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
68
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Fertility & Sterility is a quarterly English publication of Royan Institute . The aim of the journal is to disseminate information through publishing the most recent scientific research studies on Fertility and Sterility and other related topics. Int J Fertil Steril has been certified by Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance in 2007 and was accredited as a scientific and research journal by HBI (Health and Biomedical Information) Journal Accreditation Commission in 2008. Int J Fertil Steril is an Open Access journal.
期刊最新文献
An Approach to Improve Endometrial Receptivity: Is It Beneficial to Flush The Uterine Cavity with Follicular Fluid and Granulosa Cells? A Phase III Randomised Clinical Trial. Can We Harvest More Mature Oocytes by Repeating Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist Doses in Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Patients at Risk of OHSS in Antagonist Cycles? A Randomised Clinical Trial. Clinical Trials for The Management of Infertility. Effects of Testicular Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) Injection on Sperm Parameters in Men with Severe Oligoasthenoteratozoospermia (OAT): A Clinical Evaluation. Hysteroscopic Endometrial Fundal Incision versus Hysteroscopy Only in Oocyte Recipients: A Randomized Controlled Trial Assessing The Reproductive Outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1