Fertility and sterility · 1992
Zygote intrafallopian transfer or in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer for the treatment of male-factor infertility: a prospective randomized trial.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Tournaye H, Devroey P, Camus M, Valkenburg M, Bollen N, Van Steirteghem A C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT) and in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) as treatments of male-factor infertility.
DESIGN: Patients were prospectively randomized to ZIFT or IVF-ET.
SETTING: In vitro fertilization program of the Centre for Reproductive Medicine of the Dutch-speaking Brussels Free University, Belgium, which is a tertiary referral institution.
PATIENTS: One hundred fifty-seven couples were enrolled in the study. Inclusion criteria allowed only first trials of couples with long-standing infertility caused by a male factor. Female factors were excluded.
INTERVENTIONS: In ZIFT, up to three fertilized oocytes were transferred into one single patient fallopian tube by means of laparoscopy 18 hours after insemination. In IVF-ET, cleaving embryos were replaced into the uterine cavity about 48 hours after insemination.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fertilization and transfer rates, implantation and pregnancy rates, pregnancy outcome, and cost per procedure were evaluated.
RESULTS: Implantation rates of 12.3% and 10% per replaced conceptus were achieved for ZIFT and IVF-ET, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates no therapeutic advantage of ZIFT over IVF-ET in male-factor infertility in terms of reproductive outcome or economic benefit.
DESIGN: Patients were prospectively randomized to ZIFT or IVF-ET.
SETTING: In vitro fertilization program of the Centre for Reproductive Medicine of the Dutch-speaking Brussels Free University, Belgium, which is a tertiary referral institution.
PATIENTS: One hundred fifty-seven couples were enrolled in the study. Inclusion criteria allowed only first trials of couples with long-standing infertility caused by a male factor. Female factors were excluded.
INTERVENTIONS: In ZIFT, up to three fertilized oocytes were transferred into one single patient fallopian tube by means of laparoscopy 18 hours after insemination. In IVF-ET, cleaving embryos were replaced into the uterine cavity about 48 hours after insemination.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fertilization and transfer rates, implantation and pregnancy rates, pregnancy outcome, and cost per procedure were evaluated.
RESULTS: Implantation rates of 12.3% and 10% per replaced conceptus were achieved for ZIFT and IVF-ET, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates no therapeutic advantage of ZIFT over IVF-ET in male-factor infertility in terms of reproductive outcome or economic benefit.