Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 289, Issue 1, pp 207–212 | Cite as

Influence of ultrasound-guided artificial insemination on pregnancy rates: a randomized study

  • Ayla Sargın OruçEmail author
  • Nafiye Yılmaz
  • Umit Görkem
  • Hasan Ali Inal
  • Berna Seçkin
  • Cavidan Gülerman
Reproductive Medicine



To evaluate the influence of ultrasound guidance during intrauterine insemination (IUI) on pregnancy rates (PRs). The impacts of two different groups of providers were also investigated.


Study population consisted of 387 gonadotropin stimulated IUI cycles performed for unexplained infertility. The patients were randomized into two groups as ultrasound-guided IUI (n = 180) and classical IUI (n = 207). Pregnancy rates were compared. Two groups were further analyzed based on the experience of the provider (senior versus junior subgroups) who performed IUI.


Pregnancy rates were higher in the ultrasound-guided IUI group (17.2 %) compared to the classical IUI (10.1 %) (p = 0.042). In further analysis based on the experience of the provider; in the classical IUI group, PRs were similar for both subgroups, however, in the ultrasound-guided group it was higher when IUI was performed by a senior physician (21.7 versus 9.2 %, p = 0.033). Logistic regression revealed that the experience of the provider was the independent variable for improved PRs.


Ultrasound guidance improves PRs only when a senior provider performs the IUI procedure. It seems that the experience of the provider physician is one of the determinants of IUI success.


Intrauterine insemination Ultrasonography Provider Pregnancy rates 


Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Ramón O, Matorras R, Corcóstegui B, Meabe A, Burgos J, Expósito A, Crisol L (2009) Ultrasound-guided artificial insemination: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 24(5):1080–1084PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duran HE, Morshedi M, Kruger T, Oehninger S (2002) Intrauterine insemination: a systematic review on determinants of success. Hum Reprod Update 8(4):373–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dorn C, Reinsberg J, Schlebusch H, Prietl G, van der Ven H, Krebs D (1999) Serum oxytocin concentration during embryo transfer procedure. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 87(1):77–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Knutzen V, Stratton CJ, Sher G, McNamee PI, Huang TT, Soto-Albors C (1992) Mock embryo transfer in early luteal phase, the cycle before in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: a descriptive study. Fertil Steril 57(1):156–162PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mansour RT, Aboulghar MA, Serour GI, Amin YM (1994) Dummy embryo transfer using methylene blue dye. Hum Reprod 9(7):1257–1259PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lesny P, Killick SR, Tetlow RL, Robinson J, Maguiness SD (1998) Uterine junctional zone contractions during assisted reproduction cycles. Hum Reprod Update 4(4):440–445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coroleu B, Carreras O, Veiga A, Martell A, Martinez F, Belil I, Hereter L, Barri PN (2000) Embryo transfer under ultrasound guidance improves pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 15(3):616–620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sallam HN, Sadek SS (2003) Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril 80(4):1042–1046PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neithardt AB, Segars JH, Hennessy S, James AN, McKeeby JL (2005) Embryo afterloading: a refinement in embryo transfer technique that may increase clinical pregnancy. Fertil Steril 83(3):710–714PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oztekin D, Ozcinar E, Kose C, Gulhan I, Ozeren M, Tinar S (2012) The use of ultrasound during ıntrauterine ınsemination in unexplained ınfertility may ımprove pregnancy outcomes. Med Princ Pract 12 (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wainer R, Albert M, Dorion A, Bailly M, Bergère M, Lombroso R, Gombault M, Selva J (2004) Influence of the number of motile spermatozoa inseminated and of their morphology on the success of intrauterine insemination. Hum Reprod 19(9):2060–2065PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alvero R, Hearns-Stokes RM, Catherino WH, Leondires MP, Segars JH (2003) The presence of blood in the transfer catheter negatively influences outcome at embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 18(9):1848–1852PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eskandar M, Abou-Setta AM, Almushait MA, El-Amin M, Mohmad SE (2008) Ultrasound guidance during embryo transfer: a prospective, single-operator, randomized, controlled trial. Fertil Steril 90(4):1187–1190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brown J, Buckingham K, Abou-Setta AM, Buckett W (2010) Ultrasound versus ‘clinical touch’ for catheter guidance during embryo transfer in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 20(1):CD006107 (review)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karande VC, Morris R, Chapman C, Rinehart J, Gleicher N (1999) Impact of the “physician factor” on pregnancy rates in a large assisted reproductive technology program: do too many cooks spoil the broth? Fertil Steril 71(6):1001–1009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Angelini A, Brusco GF, Barnocchi N, El-Danasouri I, Pacchiarotti A, Selman HA (2006) Impact of physician performing embryo transfer on pregnancy rates in an assisted reproductive program. J Assist Reprod Genet 23(7–8):329–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ayas S, Gurbuz A, Ayaz R, Asoglu MR, Selcuk S, Alkan A, Eren S (2012) Efficacy of passive uterine straightening during intrauterine insemination on pregnancy rates and ease of technique. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 38(1):291–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hearns-Stokes RM, Miller BT, Scott L, Creuss D, Chakraborty PK, Segars JH (2000) Pregnancy rates after embryo transfer depend on the provider at embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 74(1):80–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coroleu B, Barri PN, Carreras O, Martínez F, Parriego M, Hereter L, Parera N, Veiga A, Balasch J (2002) The influence of the depth of embryo replacement into the uterine cavity on implantation rates after IVF: a controlled, ultrasound-guided study. Hum Reprod 17(2):341–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guzick DS, Carson SA, Coutifaris C, Overstreet JW, Factor Litvak P, Steinkampf MP, Hill JA et al (1999) Efficacy of superovulation and intrauterine insemination in the treatment of infertility. National Cooperative Medicine Network. N Engl J Med 340(3):177–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lesny P, Killick SR, Robinson J, Raven G, Maguiness SD (1999) Junctional zone contractions and embryo transfer: is it safe to use a tenaculum? Hum Reprod 14(9):2367–2370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khalil MR, Rasmussen PE, Erb K, Laursen SB, Rex S, Westergaard LG, Intrauterine insemination with donor semen (2001) An evaluation of prognostic factors based on a review of 1131 cycles. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80(4):342–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ayla Sargın Oruç
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nafiye Yılmaz
    • 1
  • Umit Görkem
    • 1
  • Hasan Ali Inal
    • 1
  • Berna Seçkin
    • 1
  • Cavidan Gülerman
    • 1
  1. 1.Zekai Tahir Burak Women’s Health Education and Research HospitalAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations