Transvaginal Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer
If the fallopian tubes are normal, it is appealing to use them when conception is to be assisted clinically (Jansen and Anderson 1992b). The advantages are several. First, an early intratubal location for gametes (Asch et al. 1985) or embryos (Yovich et al. 1987; Balmaceda et al. 1988) provides a better, or at least a more reliable, environment for embryonic development than might be expected with fertilisation and embryo culture in vitro. Second, the timing of embryo entry into the uterus will be determined more by endocrine events affecting the genital tract than by the operator’s judgement. And third, the direction of entry of embryos into the uterus will be from the tubes, not from the cervix. Several studies have shown that gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT), as well as early embryo transfer to the tubes, as conventionally practised through the fimbrial end of the tube at laparoscopy, produce higher rates of pregnancy than do embryo transfers through the cervix to the uterus (Yovich et al. 1988; Devroey et al. 1989).
KeywordsCatheter Eten Infertility Atropine Dial
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bieber R (1991) Transvaginal intratubal insemination by tactile sensation. Presented at the 7th World Congress on In Vitro Fertilization and Assisted Procreations (sic). Paris, France, June 30 to July 3Google Scholar
- Devroey P et al. (1989) ZIFT: indications and limitations. In: Capitanio GL, Asch RH, De Cecco L, Croce S (eds) GIFT: from basics to clinics. Raven Press, New York, pp 333-337 Ferraiolo A et al. (1991) “Blind” transcervical transfer of gametes in the fallopian tube: a preliminary study. Hum Reprod 6:537–540Google Scholar
- Jansen R, Anderson J (1990) New routes of gamete and embryo transfer. In: Asch RH, Balmaceda JP, Johnston I (eds) Gamete physiology. Serono Symposia USA, Norwell, Massachusetts, pp 331–342Google Scholar
- Jansen RPS, Anderson JC (1992a) Transvaginal gamete and embryo transfer to the fallopian tubes. In: Confino E, Risquez F (eds) Transcervical procedures on the fallopian tubes. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
- Jansen RPS, Anderson JC (1992b) Transvaginal versus laparoscopic GIFT: a case-controlled retrospective comparison. Fertil Steril 59:836–840Google Scholar
- Jansen RPS, Anderson JC, Radonic I, Smit J, Sutherland PD (1988a) Pregnancies after ultrasound-guided fallopian insemination with cryostored donor semen. Fertil Steril 49:920–922Google Scholar
- Lucena E et al. (1989) Vaginal intratubal insemination (VITI) and vaginal GIFT endosonographic technique: early experience. Presented at the 6th World Congress of In Vitro Fertilization, Jerusalem, Israel, April 2–7Google Scholar
- Platia MP, Krudy AG (1986) Transvaginal fluoroscopic recanalization of a proximally occluded oviduct. Fertil Steril 44:704–706Google Scholar
- Possati G, Pareschi A, Seracchioli R, Maccolini A, Melega C, Flamigni C (1991) Gamete intrafallopian transfer by hysteroscopy as an alternative treatment for infertility. Fertil Steril 56:496–499Google Scholar
- Scholtes MCW, Roozenburg BJ, Alberda AT, Zeilmaker GH (1990) Transcervical intrafallopian transfer of zygotes. Fertil Steril 54:283–286Google Scholar
- Winston RML (1977) Microsurgical tubocornual anastomosis for reversal of sterilization. Lancet 1:284–285Google Scholar
- Yovich JL, Blackledge DG, Richardson PA, Matson PL, Turner SR, Draper R (1987) Pregnancies following pronuclear stage tubal transfer. Fertil Steril 48:851–857Google Scholar