Fertility and sterility · 2000
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus in vitro fertilization for patients with a tubal factor as their sole cause of infertility: a prospective, randomized trial.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Bukulmez O, Yarali H, Yucel A, Sari T, Gurgan T
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and IVF in women with a tuboperitoneal factor as their sole cause of infertility.
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study.
SETTING: Hacettepe University Assisted Reproduction Unit, Ankara, Turkey.
PATIENT(S): Seventy-six consecutively seen patients with tuboperitoneal factor infertility were randomized on an alternate basis to undergo either intracytoplasmic sperm injection (38 patients and cycles) or IVF (38 patients and cycles).
INTERVENTION(S): Intracytoplasmic sperm injection and IVF.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Fertilization, implantation, and clinical pregnancy rates.
RESULT(S): A comparable number of oocytes and embryos were obtained with intracytoplasmic sperm injection and IVF. The two-pronuclei fertilization rates per metaphase II oocyte or mature cumulus-oocyte complex were similar in the two groups. The numbers of total and grade I embryos transferred also were similar. Comparisons of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and IVF did not reveal any statistically significant differences in individual implantation rates (38.75% +/- 24.46% and 34.58% +/- 16.97%, respectively) clinical pregnancy rates per cycle (21.05% and 21.05%, respectively), or take-home infant rates (18.42% and 15.79%, respectively). The type of procedure performed was not a significant predictor of clinical pregnancy.
CONCLUSION(S): When a decision is made to proceed with an assisted reproductive technique in patients with a tubal factor as their sole cause of infertility, IVF should be the initial treatment of choice.
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study.
SETTING: Hacettepe University Assisted Reproduction Unit, Ankara, Turkey.
PATIENT(S): Seventy-six consecutively seen patients with tuboperitoneal factor infertility were randomized on an alternate basis to undergo either intracytoplasmic sperm injection (38 patients and cycles) or IVF (38 patients and cycles).
INTERVENTION(S): Intracytoplasmic sperm injection and IVF.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Fertilization, implantation, and clinical pregnancy rates.
RESULT(S): A comparable number of oocytes and embryos were obtained with intracytoplasmic sperm injection and IVF. The two-pronuclei fertilization rates per metaphase II oocyte or mature cumulus-oocyte complex were similar in the two groups. The numbers of total and grade I embryos transferred also were similar. Comparisons of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and IVF did not reveal any statistically significant differences in individual implantation rates (38.75% +/- 24.46% and 34.58% +/- 16.97%, respectively) clinical pregnancy rates per cycle (21.05% and 21.05%, respectively), or take-home infant rates (18.42% and 15.79%, respectively). The type of procedure performed was not a significant predictor of clinical pregnancy.
CONCLUSION(S): When a decision is made to proceed with an assisted reproductive technique in patients with a tubal factor as their sole cause of infertility, IVF should be the initial treatment of choice.