Publication: Ultrasound guidance versus the classical method for intrauterine insemination in oral medication-stimulated cycles: A randomized, single-blind, controlled trial
Issued Date
2021-03-01
Resource Type
ISSN
18727654
03012115
03012115
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85099653055
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. Vol.258, (2021), 278-282
Suggested Citation
Isarin Thanaboonyawat, Manita Charanwetprasert, Dittakarn Boriboonhirunsarn, Somsin Petyim, Pitak Laokirkkiat Ultrasound guidance versus the classical method for intrauterine insemination in oral medication-stimulated cycles: A randomized, single-blind, controlled trial. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. Vol.258, (2021), 278-282. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.01.015 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/78410
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Ultrasound guidance versus the classical method for intrauterine insemination in oral medication-stimulated cycles: A randomized, single-blind, controlled trial
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Objective: This study was conducted to compare the pregnancy rates of ultrasound-guided intrauterine insemination (UG-IUI) and classical intrauterine insemination (C-IUI) cycles. Study design: A total of 320 infertile women were enrolled and randomized into an UG-IUI group, and a C-IUI group. All participants received an oral medication for ovarian stimulation. With both groups, the IUIs were scheduled and performed by doctors in their residency and fellowship training, under supervision. The duration and difficulty of the procedures were assessed. A pregnancy test was offered 3 weeks later if the participants did not have menstruation. Results: The demographic and other baseline characteristics of the groups (baseline hormone levels, cervical length, uterine position, endometrial thickness, and expertise of the providers) were comparable. The pregnancy rates were similar, with 6.9 % and 6.3 % for the UG-IUI and C-IUI groups, respectively. In the UG-IUI group, the pregnancy rate of the multigravida women was three times higher than that of the nulligravida women (15.4 % vs. 5.0 %; p = 0.13). Although the duration of the procedure was shorter for the UG-IUI group (p < 0.05), the level of difficulty was similar for the two groups. Conclusions: For oral-medication stimulated cycles, UG-IUI did not increase the pregnancy rate more than with C-IUI. However, the pregnancy rate tended to increase with UG-IUI for multigravida women.