Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine

The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine (대한생식의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Ultrasound guidance versus the blind method for intrauterine catheter insemination: A randomized controlled trial

  • Mubarak, Sarah (Reproductive Medicine Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, General Hospital Kuala Lumpur) ;
  • Yusoff, Noor Haliza (Reproductive Medicine Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, General Hospital Kuala Lumpur) ;
  • Adnan, Tassha Hilda (National Clinical Research Centre, General Hospital Kuala Lumpur)
  • Received : 2018.12.05
  • Accepted : 2019.03.04
  • Published : 2019.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The primary objective of this study was to compare clinical pregnancy rates in intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatment cycles with transabdominal ultrasound guidance during intrauterine catheter insemination (US-IUI) versus the "blind method" IUI without ultrasound guidance (BM-IUI). The secondary objective was to compare whether US-IUI had better patient tolerability and whether US-IUI made the insemination procedure easier for the clinician to perform compared to BM-IUI. Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial done at the Reproductive Medicine Unit of General Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. We included women aged between 25 and 40 years who underwent an IUI treatment cycle with follicle-stimulating hormone injections for controlled ovarian stimulation. Results: A total of 130 patients were recruited for our study. The US-IUI group had 70 patients and the BM-IUI group had 60 patients. The clinical pregnancy rate was 10% in both groups (p> 0.995) and there were no significant difference between the groups for patient tolerability assessed by scores on a pain visual analog scale (p= 0.175) or level of difficulty for the clinician (p> 0.995). The multivariate analysis further showed no significant increase in the clinical pregnancy rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.34; p= 0.558) in the US-IUI group compared to the BM-IUI group even after adjusting for potential covariates. Conclusion: The conventional blind method for intrauterine catheter insemination is recommended for patients undergoing IUI treatment. The use of ultrasound during the insemination procedure increased the need for trained personnel to perform ultrasonography and increased the cost, but added no extra benefits for patients or clinicians.

Keywords

References

  1. Elguero S, Forman M. Treatment options: II. intrauterine insemination. In: Bayer SR, Alper MM, Penzias AS, editors. The Boston IVF handbook of infertility: a practical guide for practitioners who care for infertile couples. 4th ed. Bra Raton: CRC Press; 2018. p. 72-7.
  2. ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Intrauterine insemination. Hum Reprod Update 2009;15:265-77. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmp003
  3. Jain S. Intrauterine insemination: current place in infertility management. Eur Med J 2018;3:58-66.
  4. Ombelet W. The revival of intrauterine insemination: evidencebased data have changed the picture. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2017;9:131-2.
  5. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Fertility: assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems. London: the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2013.
  6. Farquhar CM, Liu E, Armstrong S, Arroll N, Lensen S, Brown J. Intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation versus expectant management for unexplained infertility (TUI): a pragmatic, open-label, randomised, controlled, two-centre trial. Lancet 2018;391:441-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32406-6
  7. Duran HE, Morshedi M, Kruger T, Oehninger S. Intrauterine insemination: a systematic review on determinants of success. Hum Reprod Update 2002;8:373-84. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/8.4.373
  8. Lee J, Hwang S, Lee J, Yoo J, Jang D, Hwang K, et al. Effect of insemination timing on pregnancy outcome in association with female age, sperm motility, sperm morphology and sperm concentration in intrauterine insemination. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2018;44:1100-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13625
  9. Fancsovits P, Toth L, Murber A, Szendei G, Papp Z, Urbancsek J. Catheter type does not affect the outcome of intrauterine insemination treatment: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 2005;83:699-704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.08.034
  10. Lemmens L, Kos S, Beijer C, Braat DD, Nelen WL, Wetzels AM, et al. Techniques used for IUI: is it time for a change? Hum Reprod 2017;32:1835-45. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex223
  11. Brown J, Buckingham K, Buckett W, Abou-Setta AM. Ultrasound versus 'clinical touch' for catheter guidance during embryo transfer in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;3:CD006107.
  12. Dickey RP, Taylor SN, Lu PY, Sartor BM, Rye PH, Pyrzak R. Risk factors for high-order multiple pregnancy and multiple birth after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: results of 4,062 intrauterine insemination cycles. Fertil Steril 2005;83:671-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.10.030
  13. Berkovitz A, Biron-Shental T, Pasternak Y, Sharony R, Hershko-Klement A, Wiser A. Predictors of twin pregnancy after ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination in women with unexplained infertility. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2017;20:200-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2017.1279351
  14. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the Examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
  15. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Performing the embryo transfer: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2017;107: 882-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.01.025
  16. Prapas Y, Prapas N, Hatziparasidou A, Vanderzwalmen P, Nijs M, Prapa S, et al. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer maximizes the IVF results on day 3 and day 4 embryo transfer but has no impact on day 5. Hum Reprod 2001;16:1904-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.9.1904
  17. Coroleu B, Barri PN, Carreras O, Martinez F, Veiga A, Balasch J. The usefulness of ultrasound guidance in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 2002;17:2885-90. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.11.2885
  18. Pope CS, Cook EK, Arny M, Novak A, Grow DR. Influence of embryo transfer depth on in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer outcomes. Fertil Steril 2004;81:51-8.
  19. Rovei V, Dalmasso P, Gennarelli G, Lantieri T, Basso G, Benedetto C, et al. IVF outcome is optimized when embryos are replaced between 5 and 15 mm from the fundal endometrial surface: a prospective analysis on 1184 IVF cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2013;11:114. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-11-114
  20. Mains L, Van Voorhis BJ. Optimizing the technique of embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2010;94:785-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.03.030
  21. Ramon O, Matorras R, Corcostegui B, Meabe A, Burgos J, Exposito A, et al. Ultrasound-guided artificial insemination: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2009;24:1080-4. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den498
  22. Oztekin D, Ozcinar E, Kose C, Gulhan I, Ozeren M, Tinar S. The use of ultrasound during intrauterine insemination in unexplained infertility may improve pregnancy outcomes. Med Princ Pract 2013;22:291-4. https://doi.org/10.1159/000345387
  23. Oruc AS, Yilmaz N, Gorkem U, Inal HA, Seckin B, Gulerman C. Influence of ultrasound-guided artificial insemination on pregnancy rates: a randomized study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014;289:207-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2965-y
  24. Polat I, Ekiz A, Yildirim G, Sahin O, Ulker V, Alkis I, et al. Ultrasound-guided intrauterine insemination versus blind intrauterine insemination: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2015;42:657-62.