Advertisement

Ultrasound for Embryo Transfer

  • Wellington P. MartinsEmail author
  • Danielle M. Teixeira
  • Marina W. P. Barbosa
Chapter

Abstract

Embryo transfer (ET) is the final procedure during assisted reproductive treatments (ART). Despite all the efforts on improving ART results, ET has changed little overtime [1]. Although embryo implantation is still not fully understood, some evidences suggest the impact of ET technique on the implantation process [2], impacting the reproductive outcomes [1, 3]. Several factors have recently been associated with better results of ET procedure: the ease of transfer [1], physician’s experience [4], type of catheter, and the use of ultrasound (US) guidance [3]. Moreover, even though ET is an important process, its technique is rarely described in clinical trials [5], reducing the possibility of standardization and compromising the reproducibility of studies.

Keywords

Pregnancy Rate Embryo Transfer Uterine Cavity Bladder Volume Cervical Length 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material

Video 11.1

(MP4 3374 kb)

Video 11.2

(MP4 6973 kb)

Video 11.3

(MP4 9231 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Phillips JA, Martins WP, Nastri CO, Raine-Fenning NJ. Difficult embryo transfers or blood on catheter and assisted reproductive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;168:121–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levi Setti PE, Albani E, Cavagna M, Bulletti C, Colombo GV, Negri L. The impact of embryo transfer on implantation – a review. Placenta. 2003;24(Suppl B):S20–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Teixeira DM, Dassuncao LA, Vieira CV, Barbosa MA, Coelho Neto MA, Nastri CO, Martins WP. Ultrasound guidance during embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45:139–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yao Z, Vansteelandt S, Van der Elst J, Coetsier T, Dhont M, De Sutter P. The efficacy of the embryo transfer catheter in IVF and ICSI is operator-dependent: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:880–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gambadauro P, Navaratnarajah R. Reporting of embryo transfer methods in IVF research: a cross-sectional study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30:137–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mains L, Van Voorhis BJ. Optimizing the technique of embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:785–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Derks RS, Farquhar C, Mol BW, Buckingham K, Heineman MJ. Techniques for preparation prior to embryo transfer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(4):CD007682.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abou-Setta AM, Peters LR, D'Angelo A, Sallam HN, Hart RJ, Al-Inany HG. Post-embryo transfer interventions for assisted reproduction technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(8):CD006567.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martins WP, Soares CA, Barbosa MW, Yamaguti EM, Ferriani RA. Oocyte retrieval using the lateral recumbent position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;doi: 10.1002/uog.15804.
  10. 10.
    Groutz A, Lessing JB, Wolf Y, Azem F, Yovel I, Amit A. Comparison of transmyometrial and transcervical embryo transfer in patients with previously failed in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles and/or cervical stenosis. Fertil Steril. 1997;67:1073–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lin TK, Lin YR, Lai TH, Lee FK, Su JT, Lo HC. Transmyometrial blastocyst transfer in a patient with congenital cervical atresia. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;49:366–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jamal W, Phillips SJ, Hemmings R, Lapensee L, Couturier B, Bissonnette F, Kadoch IJ. Successful pregnancy following novel IVF protocol and transmyometrial embryo transfer after radical vaginal trachelectomy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18:700–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schoolcraft WB. Importance of embryo transfer technique in maximizing assisted reproductive outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:855–60.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Revelli A, Rovei V, Dalmasso P, Gennarelli G, Racca C, Evangelista F, Benedetto C. A large prospective randomized trial comparing trans-abdominal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer (UGET) with an embryo transfer technique based on previous uterine length measurement (ULMb-ET). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; In press (PMID: 26924732 doi:  10.1002/uog.15899).
  15. 15.
    Bar Hava I, Meltzer S, Rabinson J, Ayash I, Sega S, Tur Kaspa I. Ultrasound guided versus blind tactile embryo transfer: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen SC, Lai TH, Lee FK. The influence of abdominal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer on pregnancy rate: a preliminary report. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:1235–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coroleu B, Barri PN, Carreras O, Martinez F, Veiga A, Balasch J. The usefulness of ultrasound guidance in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:2885–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Coroleu B, Carreras O, Veiga A, Martell A, Martinez F, Belil I, Hereter L, Barri PN. Embryo transfer under ultrasound guidance improves pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:616–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eskandar M, Abou-Setta AM, Almushait MA, El-Amin M, Mohmad SE. Ultrasound guidance during embryo transfer: a prospective, single-operator, randomized, controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:1187–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garcia-Velasco JA, Isaza V, Martinez-Salazar J, Landazabal A, Requena A, Remohi J, Simon C. Transabdominal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer does not increase pregnancy rates in oocyte recipients. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:534–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maldonado LG, Ajzen SA, Busato WC, Iaconelli Jr A, Bibancos M, Borges Jr E. Impact of previous hysterossonometry on embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:S364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martins AMC, Baruffi RL, Mauri AL, Petersen C, Oliveira JB, Contart P, Pontes A, Franco Jr JG. Ultrasound guidance is not necessary during easy embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004;21:421–5.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Matorras R, Urquijo E, Mendoza R, Corcostegui B, Exposito A, Rodriguez-Escudero FJ. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer improves pregnancy rates and increases the frequency of easy transfers. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1762–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moraga-Sanchez MR, Saucedo-de la Llata E, Batiza-Resendiz V, Santos-Haliscak R, Galache-Vega P, Hernández-Ayup S, Patrizio P. Ultrasound influence and 30 second wait in embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:i127.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tang OS, Ng EH, So WW, Ho PC. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2310–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weissman A, Farhi J, Steinfeld Z, Mutsafi R, Nahum H, Levran D. A prospective, randomized study of ultrasound-guided embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:S122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wisanto A, Janssens R, Deschacht J, Camus M, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Performance of different embryo transfer catheters in a human in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril. 1989;52:79–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bodri D, Colodron M, Garcia D, Obradors A, Vernaeve V, Coll O. Transvaginal versus transabdominal ultrasound guidance for embryo transfer in donor oocyte recipients: a randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2263–8, 2268 e2261.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hauzman E, Kohls G, Barrio A, Martinez Salazar J, Iglesias C, Garcia-Velasco JA. Comparison of embryo transfer in egg donation recipients with transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasound: a randomized pilot study. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:i241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Porat N, Boehnlein LM, Schouweiler CM, Kang J, Lindheim SR. Interim analysis of a randomized clinical trial comparing abdominal versus transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2010;36:384–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maldonado LG, Ajzen SA, Aoki T, Busato WC, Pasqualotto A, Iaconelli Jr A, Borges Jr E. Embryo transfer based on previous uterine length measurement: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:i99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gaikwad S, Garrido N, Cobo A, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Bed rest after embryo transfer negatively affects in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:729–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Buckett WM. A review and meta-analysis of prospective trials comparing different catheters used for embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:728–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Barbosa MW, Silva LR, Navarro PA, Ferriani RA, Nastri CO, Martins WP. Dydrogesterone vs progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; In press (PMID: 26577241 doi:  10.1002/uog.15814).
  35. 35.
    Coroleu B, Barri PN, Carreras O, Martinez F, Parriego M, Hereter L, Parera N, Veiga A, Balasch J. The influence of the depth of embryo replacement into the uterine cavity on implantation rates after IVF: a controlled, ultrasound-guided study. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:341–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pope CS, Cook EK, Arny M, Novak A, Grow DR. Influence of embryo transfer depth on in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:51–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Frankfurter D, Trimarchi JB, Silva CP, Keefe DL. Middle to lower uterine segment embryo transfer improves implantation and pregnancy rates compared with fundal embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1273–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cenksoy PO, Ficicioglu C, Yesiladali M, Akcin OA, Kaspar C. The importance of the length of uterine cavity, the position of the tip of the inner catheter and the distance between the fundal endometrial surface and the air bubbles as determinants of the pregnancy rate in IVF cycles. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;172:46–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pacchiarotti A, Mohamed MA, Micara G, Tranquilli D, Linari A, Espinola SM, Aragona C. The impact of the depth of embryo replacement on IVF outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24:189–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kwon H, Choi DH, Kim EK. Absolute position versus relative position in embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015;13:78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Eytan O, Elad D, Jaffa AJ. Evaluation of the embryo transfer protocol by a laboratory model of the uterus. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:485–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yaniv S, Elad D, Jaffa AJ, Eytan O. Biofluid aspects of embryo transfer. Ann Biomed Eng. 2003;31:1255–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fanchin R, Righini C, Olivennes F, Taylor S, de Ziegler D, Frydman R. Uterine contractions at the time of embryo transfer alter pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:1968–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Saravelos SH, Wong AW, Chan CP, Kong GW, Li TC. How often does the embryo implant at the location where it was transferred? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48:106–12.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Küçük M. Bed rest after embryo transfer: is it harmful? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;167:123–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hawkins LK, Rossi BV, Correia KF, Lipskind ST, Hornstein MD, Missmer SA. Perceptions among infertile couples of lifestyle behaviors and in vitro fertilization (IVF) success. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:255–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nouri K, Tempfer CB, Walch K, Promberger R, Dag S, Ott J. Predictive value of the time interval between embryo loading and transfer for IVF/ICSI success: a prospective cohort study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015;13:51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tiras B, Cenksoy PO. Practice of embryo transfer: recommendations during and after. Semin Reprod Med. 2014;32:291–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Desparoir A, Capelle M, Banet J, Noizet A, Gamerre M, Courbiere B. Does the experience of the provider affect pregnancy rates after embryo transfer? J Reprod Med. 2011;56:437–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Saravelos SH, Wong AW, Kong GW, Huang J, Klitzman R, Li TC. Pain during embryo transfer is independently associated with clinical pregnancy in fresh/frozen assisted reproductive technology cycles. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016;42(6):684–93.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Akhtar MA, Netherton R, Majumder K, Edi-Osagie E, Sajjad Y. Methods employed to overcome difficult embryo transfer during assisted reproduction treatment. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292:255–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mansour R, Aboulghar M, Serour G. Dummy embryo transfer: a technique that minimizes the problems of embryo transfer and improves the pregnancy rate in human in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1990;54:678–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nastri CO, Lensen SF, Gibreel A, Raine-Fenning N, Ferriani RA, Bhattacharya S, Martins WP. Endometrial injury in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(3):CD009517.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Guven S, Kart C, Unsal MA, Yildirim O, Odaci E, Yulug E. Endometrial injury may increase the clinical pregnancy rate in normoresponders undergoing long agonist protocol ICSI cycles with single embryo transfer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;173:58–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Nastri CO, Ferriani RA, Raine-Fenning N, Martins WP. Endometrial scratching performed in the non-transfer cycle and outcome of assisted reproduction: a randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42:375–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Prapas N, Prapas Y, Panagiotidis Y, Prapa S, Vanderzwalmen P, Makedos G. Cervical dilatation has a positive impact on the outcome of IVF in randomly assigned cases having two previous difficult embryo transfers. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:1791–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Saravelos SH, Wong AW, Chan CP, Kong GW, Li TC. How often does the embryo implant at the location where it was transferred? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; doi: 10.1002/uog.15778.
  58. 58.
    Woolcott R, Stanger J. Potentially important variables identified by transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:963–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Madani T, Ashrafi M, Jahangiri N, Abadi AB, Lankarani N. Improvement of pregnancy rate by modification of embryo transfer technique: a randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2424–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Fang L, Sun Y, Su Y, Guo Y. Advantages of 3-dimensional sonography in embryo transfer. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28:573–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nastri CO, Martins WP. Ultrasound guidance for embryo transfer: where do we stand? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; In press (doi:  10.1002/uog.16005).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wellington P. Martins
    • 1
    Email author
  • Danielle M. Teixeira
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marina W. P. Barbosa
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyRibeirão Preto Medical School, University of São PauloRibeirão PretoBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyFederal University of ParanaCuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations