Fertility and sterility · 1993
A prospective randomized comparison of zygote intrafallopian transfer and in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer for nontubal factor infertility.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Fluker M R, Zouves C G, Bebbington M W
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT) versus standard IVF-ET for the treatment of nontubal factor infertility.
DESIGN: A prospective randomized trial.
PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-nine couples undergoing oocyte retrieval for nontubal infertility in a university hospital-based IVF-ET program.
INTERVENTIONS: A maximum of four cleaving embryos were transferred into the fallopian tube or uterine cavity 48 or 55 hours after oocyte retrieval, respectively.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of implantation, pregnancy, and spontaneous abortion (SAB) were compared.
RESULTS: Clinical pregnancies occurred after 26.5% versus 12% of retrievals and 29% versus 14.3% of transfers in IVF-ET versus ZIFT cycles, respectively. Pregnancy, implantation, and SAB rates did not differ between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This prospective randomized trial failed to demonstrate any therapeutic improvement associated with the increased complexity of ZIFT as compared with standard IVF-ET.
DESIGN: A prospective randomized trial.
PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-nine couples undergoing oocyte retrieval for nontubal infertility in a university hospital-based IVF-ET program.
INTERVENTIONS: A maximum of four cleaving embryos were transferred into the fallopian tube or uterine cavity 48 or 55 hours after oocyte retrieval, respectively.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of implantation, pregnancy, and spontaneous abortion (SAB) were compared.
RESULTS: Clinical pregnancies occurred after 26.5% versus 12% of retrievals and 29% versus 14.3% of transfers in IVF-ET versus ZIFT cycles, respectively. Pregnancy, implantation, and SAB rates did not differ between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This prospective randomized trial failed to demonstrate any therapeutic improvement associated with the increased complexity of ZIFT as compared with standard IVF-ET.