Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus in vitro fertilization for patients with a tubal factor as their sole cause of infertility: A prospective, randomized trial

Orhan Bukulmez, Hakan Yarali, Aykan Yucel, Tamer Sari, Timur Gurgan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

67 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)38-42
Number of pages5
JournalFertility and Sterility
Volume73
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2000

Fingerprint

Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injections
Fertilization in Vitro
Infertility
Oocytes
Pregnancy Rate
Fertilization
Embryonic Structures
Assisted Reproductive Techniques
Metaphase
Turkey
Individuality
Reproduction
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Prospective Studies
Pregnancy

Keywords

  • Clinical pregnancy
  • Fertilization
  • ICSI
  • Infertility
  • IVF
  • Tubal factor

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus in vitro fertilization for patients with a tubal factor as their sole cause of infertility : A prospective, randomized trial. / Bukulmez, Orhan; Yarali, Hakan; Yucel, Aykan; Sari, Tamer; Gurgan, Timur.

In: Fertility and Sterility, Vol. 73, No. 1, 01.2000, p. 38-42.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{dda32922b93d4ea39b1355ac015185e9,
title = "Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus in vitro fertilization for patients with a tubal factor as their sole cause of infertility: A prospective, randomized trial",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Clinical pregnancy, Fertilization, ICSI, Infertility, IVF, Tubal factor",
author = "Orhan Bukulmez and Hakan Yarali and Aykan Yucel and Tamer Sari and Timur Gurgan",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00449-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "73",
pages = "38--42",
journal = "Fertility and Sterility",
issn = "0015-0282",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus in vitro fertilization for patients with a tubal factor as their sole cause of infertility

T2 - A prospective, randomized trial

AU - Bukulmez, Orhan

AU - Yarali, Hakan

AU - Yucel, Aykan

AU - Sari, Tamer

AU - Gurgan, Timur

PY - 2000/1

Y1 - 2000/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Clinical pregnancy

KW - Fertilization

KW - ICSI

KW - Infertility

KW - IVF

KW - Tubal factor

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033971502&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033971502&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00449-5

DO - 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00449-5

M3 - Article

C2 - 10632409

AN - SCOPUS:0033971502

VL - 73

SP - 38

EP - 42

JO - Fertility and Sterility

JF - Fertility and Sterility

SN - 0015-0282

IS - 1

ER -