Fertility and sterility · 2000
Zygote intrafallopian transfer in patients with tubal factor infertility after repeated failure of implantation with in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Farhi J, Weissman A, Nahum H, Levran D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT) in terms of implantation and pregnancy rates in patients with tubal factor infertility and repeated implantation failure in IVF-ET cycles.
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of ZIFT cycles.
SETTING: An IVF unit in a university hospital.
PATIENT(S): Criteria for patient selection for ZIFT included at least four failures of implantation in IVF-ET cycles in which at least 3 embryos were replaced per transfer and a cause of infertility diagnosed as male, unexplained, or tubal factor with proof of one patient tube.
INTERVENTION(S): Four to six zygotes were transferred by laparoscopy into the fallopian tube 24-26 hours after oocyte retrieval.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Implantation and pregnancy rates were determined in 112 ZIFT cycles performed in 81 patients with repeated failure of implantation. Results were further stratified for patients with tubal factor (n = 15) and patients without tubal factor (n = 66).
RESULT(S): The pregnancy and implantation rates for all ZIFT cycles were 35.1% and 11.1%, respectively. Pregnancy and implantation rates per cycle in patients with tubal factor versus patients without tubal factor were 26.6% versus 37.1% and 9.4% versus 11.4%, respectively.
CONCLUSION(S): ZIFT can be considered as a mode of treatment for patients with repeated failure of implantation in IVF-ET and with tubal factor with proved patency of one tube.
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of ZIFT cycles.
SETTING: An IVF unit in a university hospital.
PATIENT(S): Criteria for patient selection for ZIFT included at least four failures of implantation in IVF-ET cycles in which at least 3 embryos were replaced per transfer and a cause of infertility diagnosed as male, unexplained, or tubal factor with proof of one patient tube.
INTERVENTION(S): Four to six zygotes were transferred by laparoscopy into the fallopian tube 24-26 hours after oocyte retrieval.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Implantation and pregnancy rates were determined in 112 ZIFT cycles performed in 81 patients with repeated failure of implantation. Results were further stratified for patients with tubal factor (n = 15) and patients without tubal factor (n = 66).
RESULT(S): The pregnancy and implantation rates for all ZIFT cycles were 35.1% and 11.1%, respectively. Pregnancy and implantation rates per cycle in patients with tubal factor versus patients without tubal factor were 26.6% versus 37.1% and 9.4% versus 11.4%, respectively.
CONCLUSION(S): ZIFT can be considered as a mode of treatment for patients with repeated failure of implantation in IVF-ET and with tubal factor with proved patency of one tube.