Advertisement

Embryo Transfer and Luteal Phase Support

  • William B. Schoolcraft
Conference paper
Part of the Proceedings in the Serono Symposia USA Series book series (SERONOSYMP)

Abstract

The main variables affecting pregnancy and implantation rates are uterine receptivity, embryo quality, and transfer efficiency. Much less effort has historically been placed on assessing or maximizing embryo transfer procedures compared with the other aspects of in vitro fertilization. Embryo transfer is usually performed blindly with no attempt to document the variables that might adversely impact pregnancy rates. Physicians too frequently underestimate the importance of the embryo transfer technique and are often unwilling to modify their own personal habits or catheter choices.

Keywords

Pregnancy Rate Embryo Transfer Implantation Rate Clinical Pregnancy Rate Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mansour R, Aboulghar M, Serour G, Amin Y. Dummy embryo transfer using methylene blue dye. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1257–59.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Poindexter A, Thompson D, Gibbons W, Findley W, Dodson M, Young R. Residual embryos in failed embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1986;46:262–67.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Visser D, Fourie S, Kruger H. Multiple attempts at embryo transfer: effects on pregnancy outcome in an in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer program. J Assist Reprod Genet 1993;10:37–43.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen J. Syllabus: maximizing the potential of every embryo to minimize multiple embryo transfer. ASRM Annual Meeting, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Egbase P, Al-Sharhan M, Al-Othman S, Al-Muta M, Udo E, Grudzinskas J. Incidence of microbial growth from the tip of the embryo transfer catheter after embryo transfer in relation to clinical pregnancy rate following in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1996;11:1687–89.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McNamee PI, Huang TTF, Carwile AH, Kosasa TS, Vu KK. Significant increase in pregnancy rates achieved by vigorous irrigiation of endocervical mucus prior to embryo transfer with the Wallace catheter in an IVF-ET program. Proc Am Soc Rep Med 1988;54:P–322.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wisanto A, Janssens R, Deschacht J, Camus M, Devorey P, Van Steirteghem A. Performance of different embryo transfers in a human in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril 1989;52:79–84.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Al-Shawaf T, Dave R, Harper J, Linehan D, Riley P, Craft I. Transfer of embryos into the uterus: how much do technical factors affect pregnancy rates? J Assist Reprod Genet 1993;10:31–36.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Englert Y, Puissant F, Camus M, Van Houck J, Leroy F. Clinical study on embryo transfer after human in vitro fertilization. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transfer 1986;3:243–46.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Woolcott R, Stanger J. Potentially important variables identified by transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:963–66.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Soliman S, Daya S, Collins J, Hughes EG. The role of luteal phase support in infertility treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Fertil Steril 1994;6:1068–76.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schoolcraft W, Hesla J, Gee M. Experience with Crinone 8% for luteal support in a highly successful IVF program. Hum Reprod 2000;15:1278–83.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • William B. Schoolcraft

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations