Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Randomised Comparative Study of Standard IUI (sIUI) and Fallopian Tube Sperm Perfusion (FSP) for Clinical Pregnancy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the pregnancy rates of two methods of intrauterine insemination (IUI), i.e. standard IUI (sIUI) and fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP).

Methods

This prospective randomised parallel study design included 160 infertile women < 38 years of age where IUI was indicated. We recorded a detailed history and conducted a careful clinical examination with the performance of baseline investigations. Each patient was randomly allocated into two groups: Group sIUI (n = 80) and Group FSP (n = 80). The patients underwent two cycles of IUI for achieving clinical pregnancy. The conception of pregnancy among both groups was noted and compared.

Results

The mean age of the females, mean age of the male partners, and duration of marriage in Group sIUI and FSP were comparable (p > 0.05). Compared to the sIUI group, the FSP group had significantly higher patients who conceived (15.97% vs. 6.54%, P = 0.016). In the cases with unexplained infertility, in cycle 2, in the FSP group, there were significantly more patients who conceived (21.05% vs. 0.00%, P = 0.047).

Conclusion

We conclude that FSP over two treatment cycles offers an advantage over the standard IUI and could replace the sIUI in specific indications such as unexplained infertility for artificial insemination. It could be used as an alternative for couples with non-tubal infertility before moving on to IVF treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization (WHO). International classification of diseases, 11th revision (ICD-11). WHO Geneva: 2018. Available from https://www.who.int/news/item/18-06-2018-who-releases-new-international-classification-of-diseases-(icd-11).

  2. Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR, Boerma T, et al. National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: a systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med. 2012;9(12): e1001356. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001356.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Gore AC, Chappell VA, Fenton SE, et al. EDC-2: the endocrine society’s second scientific statement on endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Endocr Rev. 2015;36(6):E1–150. https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2015-1010.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Panda B, Mohapatra L, Sahu MC, et al. Success in pregnancy through intrauterine insemination at first cycle in 300 infertile couples: an analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2014;64(2):134–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-013-0484-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shekhawat GS. Intrauterine insemination versus fallopian tube sperm perfusion in nontubal infertility. Med J Armed Forces India. 2012;68:226–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2012.02.013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Peivandi S, Ebadi A, Modanlu S. The comparison between Intrauterine insemination and fallopian tube sperm perfusion using FAST®System in patients with unexplained infertility. Int J Fertil Steril. 2015;8(4):379–84. https://doi.org/10.22074/ijfs.2015.4177.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Ng EH, Makkar G, Yeung WS, et al. A randomised comparison of three insemination methods in an artificial insemination program using husbands’ semen. J Reprod Med. 2003;48:542–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cantineau AE, Cohlen BJ, Heineman MJ, et al. Intrauterine insemination versus fallopian tube sperm perfusion for non-tubal infertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;10:CD001502.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Biacchiardi CP, Revelli A, Gennarelli G, et al. Fallopian tube sperm perfusion versus intrauterine insemination in unexplained infertility: a randomised, prospective, cross-over trial. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:448–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.06.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cantineau AE, Cohlen BJ, Al-Inany H, et al. Intrauterine insemination versus fallopian tube sperm perfusion for non tubal infertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;3:CD001502.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Natali I Sperm preparation techniques for artificial insemination-comparison of sperm washing, swim up, and density gradient centrifugation methods. Dalam: Manafi M, penyunting. Artificial insemination in farm animals. InTechOpen. 2011. https://doi.org/10.5772/17026. Available from https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/16102.

  12. Craig LB, Bibens KW, Jarshaw CL, et al. Semen regurgitation during intrauterine insemination procedure does not lower pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.07.1183.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rodriguez-Purata J, Latre L, Ballester M, et al. Clinical success of IUI cycles with donor sperm is not affected by total inseminated volume: a RCT. Hum Reprod Open. 2018;2:hoy002.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ricci G, Nucera G, Pozzobon C, et al. A simple method for fallopian tube sperm perfusion using a blocking device in the treatment of unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril. 2001;7:1242–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(01)02913-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith KL, Grow DR, Wiczyk HP, et al. Does catheter type effect pregnancy rate in intrauterine insemination cycles? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2002;19(2):49–52. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014414128905.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, India

    Nahid Farooqui (Post Graduate Student) & Bindu Bajaj (Professor)

Authors
  1. Nahid Farooqui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bindu Bajaj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nahid Farooqui.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest among the authors.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval for study involving human participants have been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

All the participants were included after informed and written consent of themselves or their legally authorised representative in case of illiterate participants.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Nahid Farooqui is a Post Graduate Student, Department of obstetrics and Gynaecology, VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, India. Bindu Bajaj is a Professor, Department of obstetrics and Gynaecology, VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, India.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Farooqui, N., Bajaj, B. A Randomised Comparative Study of Standard IUI (sIUI) and Fallopian Tube Sperm Perfusion (FSP) for Clinical Pregnancy. J Obstet Gynecol India 72 (Suppl 1), 299–305 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-021-01583-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-021-01583-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation