Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 1997
An open multicenter study to compare the efficacy of intraperitoneal insemination and intrauterine insemination following multiple follicular development as treatment for unexplained infertility.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ajossa S, Melis G B, Cianci A, Coccia M E, Fulghesu A M, Giuffrida G, Guerriero S, Lanzone A, Francoscarselli G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This multicenter study was carried out to compare the efficacy of intrauterine insemination (IUI) and intraperitoneal insemination (IPI) associated with multiple follicular development as treatment for unexplained infertility.
METHOD: A total of 205 couples completed the trial. Sixty-seven couples underwent treatment with IPI (group A) and 138 couples underwent treatment with IUI (group B).
RESULTS: Clinical pregnancy was obtained in 23 couples in group A (pregnancy rate: 34.3%) and in 36 couples in group B (pregnancy rate: 26.1%). No significant difference was observed between group A and group B. As for the evolution of pregnancies and the incidence of twin pregnancies, no significant difference was observed between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Because IUI and IPI allow us to obtain same results and IPI is more invasive than IUI, the latter technique can be considered the method of choice and IPI should be used when IUI is difficult to perform, as in the presence of a tight cervical canal.
METHOD: A total of 205 couples completed the trial. Sixty-seven couples underwent treatment with IPI (group A) and 138 couples underwent treatment with IUI (group B).
RESULTS: Clinical pregnancy was obtained in 23 couples in group A (pregnancy rate: 34.3%) and in 36 couples in group B (pregnancy rate: 26.1%). No significant difference was observed between group A and group B. As for the evolution of pregnancies and the incidence of twin pregnancies, no significant difference was observed between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Because IUI and IPI allow us to obtain same results and IPI is more invasive than IUI, the latter technique can be considered the method of choice and IPI should be used when IUI is difficult to perform, as in the presence of a tight cervical canal.