Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 1999
The effect of hydrosalpinges on IVF-ET outcome.
Клиническое исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Barmat L I, Rauch E, Spandorfer S, Kowalik A, Sills E S, Schattman G, Liu H C, Rosenwaks Z
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Our purpose was to determine if the presence of a hydrosalpinx effects the outcome of in vitro fertilization (IVF)-embryo transfer.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of IVF cycle stimulation sheets.
RESULTS: A total of 1000 patients with tubal factor infertility was analyzed. There were 60 hydrosalpinx patients who underwent 116 initiated cycles with 106 embryo transfers, compared to 940 control patients undergoing 1428 initiated cycles with 1150 embryo transfers. Both groups had a similar response to ovarian stimulation, number of oocytes retrieved, and number of embryos transferred. The hydrosalpinx group had a significantly higher preclinical loss rate (22/59 = 37% vs 80/566 = 14%; P = 0.001), a significantly lower implantation rate (55/352 = 16% vs 795/3795 = 21%; P = 0.013), a trend toward a reduced delivery rate per transfer (28/106 = 26% vs 387/1150 = 34%; P = 0.066), a significantly higher ectopic pregnancy rate (5/59 = 8% vs 16/566 = 3%; P = 0.04), and a similar spontaneous abortion rate (9/37 = 24% vs 99/486 = 20%; P = 0.28) compared to the control tubal factor group.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a decrease in implantation rates and an increase in preclinical miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies in patients with hydrosalpinges compared to tubal-factor patients without sonographic evidence of dilated fallopian tubes.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of IVF cycle stimulation sheets.
RESULTS: A total of 1000 patients with tubal factor infertility was analyzed. There were 60 hydrosalpinx patients who underwent 116 initiated cycles with 106 embryo transfers, compared to 940 control patients undergoing 1428 initiated cycles with 1150 embryo transfers. Both groups had a similar response to ovarian stimulation, number of oocytes retrieved, and number of embryos transferred. The hydrosalpinx group had a significantly higher preclinical loss rate (22/59 = 37% vs 80/566 = 14%; P = 0.001), a significantly lower implantation rate (55/352 = 16% vs 795/3795 = 21%; P = 0.013), a trend toward a reduced delivery rate per transfer (28/106 = 26% vs 387/1150 = 34%; P = 0.066), a significantly higher ectopic pregnancy rate (5/59 = 8% vs 16/566 = 3%; P = 0.04), and a similar spontaneous abortion rate (9/37 = 24% vs 99/486 = 20%; P = 0.28) compared to the control tubal factor group.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a decrease in implantation rates and an increase in preclinical miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies in patients with hydrosalpinges compared to tubal-factor patients without sonographic evidence of dilated fallopian tubes.