Journals / Annals of Medical Research / 2021 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 2

IVF/ICSI outcomes in single-versus double-lumen oocyte retrieval needles in patients with unexplained infertility

Pages
281–285
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Our study showed that the use of double lumen increased implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate and it is evaluated as an independent factor that increases IVF/ICSI outcomes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: To compare IVF-ICSI outcomes in single-versus-double lumen oocyte retrieval needles in patients diagnosed with unexplained infertilityMaterials and Methods: A total of 188 patients aged 23-33 years who were diagnosed as unexplained infertility and underwent IVF/ICSI treatment were included and divided into two groups according to whether the catheter used in oocyte collection was single or double lumened: group 1 patients with single lumen (n: 59) and group 2 patients with double lumen (n:129).
📊
Key Findings & Data:In addition, patients were divided into two subgroups according to the treatment protocol: antagonist protocol (n:134; 45 patient in group 1 and 89 patient in group 2) and long agonist protocol (n:54; 14 patient in group 1 and 40 patient in group 2).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Our study showed that the use of double lumen increased implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate and it is evaluated as an independent factor that increases IVF/ICSI outcomes.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: To compare IVF-ICSI outcomes in single-versus-double lumen oocyte retrieval needles in patients diagnosed with unexplained infertilityMaterials and Methods: A total of 188 patients aged 23-33 years who were diagnosed as unexplained infertility and underwent IVF/ICSI treatment were included and divided into two groups according to whether the catheter used in oocyte collection was single or double lumened: group 1 patients with single lumen (n: 59) and group 2 patients with double lumen (n:129). In addition, patients were divided into two subgroups according to the treatment protocol: antagonist protocol (n:134; 45 patient in group 1 and 89 patient in group 2) and long agonist protocol (n:54; 14 patient in group 1 and 40 patient in group 2). Results: Implantation rate (32.2% vs. 48.1%, p:0.042) clinical pregnancy rate (25.4% vs. 41.9%, p:0.03) and live birth rate (17.2% vs. 28.6%, p: 0.011) were higher in patients to whom double-lumen was used. According to multivariate logistic regression analysis, double lumen use was found to be an independent predictor for clinical pregnancy (p = 0.041). According to the treatment protocol; clinical pregnancy rates (15 (25.4%) vs. 54 (41.9%), p: 0.011) and live birth rates (8 (13.6%) vs. 40 (31.0%), p: 0.030) of patients to whom double lumen was used during oocyte pick-up after the antagonist protocol were significantly higher. Conclusion: Our study showed that the use of double lumen increased implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate and it is evaluated as an independent factor that increases IVF/ICSI outcomes.

🔖

Cite This Article

TEKİN, Ö. M., BASER, E., YENİGÜL, N. N., DİLBAZ, B., ÖZELCİ, R., ALDEMİR, O., DİLBAZ, S. (2022). IVF/ICSI outcomes in single-versus double-lumen oocyte retrieval needles in patients with unexplained infertility. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 2, 281–285. https://ajindex.com/articles/445861

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Levy G, Hill MJ, Ramirez CI, et al. The use of follicle flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Human reproduction 2012;27:2373-9
  2. Wongtra-ngan S, Vutyavanich T, Brown J. Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010
  3. Levens ED, Whitcomb BW, Payson MD, et al.Ovarian follicular flushing among low-responding patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2009;91:1381-4
  4. Haydardedeoglu B, Cok T, Kilicdag EB, et al. Invitro fertilization–intra cytoplasmic sperm injectionout comes in single-versus double-lumen oocyte retrieval needles in normally responding patients: a randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2011;95:812-4
  5. Sharara FI, Mcclamrock HD. High estradiol levels and high oocyte yield are not detrimental to in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 1999;72:401-5
  6. Haydardedeoglu B, Gjemalaj F, Aytac PC, et al. Direct aspiration versus follicular flushing in poor responders undergoing intra cytoplasmic sperm injection: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG: An International J Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2017;124:1190-6
  7. Georgiou EX, Melo P, Brown J, et al. Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018
  8. Neumann K, Griesinger G. Follicular flushing in patients with poor ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reproductive biomedicine online 2018;36:408-15
  9. Von Horn K, Depenbusch M, Schultze-Mosgau A, et al. Randomized, open trial comparing a modified double-lumen needle follicular flushing system with a single-lumen aspiration needle in IVF patients with poor ovarian response. Human Reproduction 2017;32: 832-5
  10. Kovacs G. Oocyte collection. In: Gardner, D. K., Weissman, A., Howles, C. M., Shoham, Z, Eds. Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Techniques: Volume 2: Clinical Perspectives. 5th edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2018;604-11
  11. Hill MJ, Levens ED. Is there a benefit in follicularflushing in assisted reproductive technology? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2010;22:208-12
  12. Lozano DHM, Scheffer JB, Frydman N, et al. Optimal reproductive competence of oocytes retrieved through follicular flushing in minimal stimulation IVF. Reproductive biomedicine online 2008;16:119-23.