Page 70 - PCC14

ASRM PAGES
61. Flisser E, Grifo JA, Krey LC, Noyes N. Transabdominal ultrasound-assisted embryo transfer and pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril 2006;85:353–7, Level II-2.
62. Anderson RE, Nugent NL, Gregg AT, Nunn SL, Behr BR. Transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer improves outcome in patients with previous failed in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 2002;77: 769–75, Level II-2.
63. Kojima K, Nomiyama M, Kumamoto T, Matsumoto Y, Iwasaka T. Transva- ginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer improves pregnancy and implan- tation rates after IVF. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2578–82, Level II-2.
64. Bodri D, Colodron M, Garcia D, Obradors A, Vernaeve V, Coll O. Transva- ginal versus transabdominal ultrasound guidance for embryo transfer in donor oocyte recipients: a randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril 2011;95: 2263–8.e1, Level I.
65. Revelli A, Rovei V, Dalmasso P, Gennarelli G, Racca C, Evangelista F, et al. Large randomized trial comparing transabdominal ultrasound-guided em- bryo transfer with a technique based on uterine length measurement before embryo transfer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016;48:289–95, Level I.
66. Moini A, Kiani K, Bahmanabadi A, Akhoond M, Akhlaghi A. Improvement in pregnancy rate by removal of cervical discharge prior to embryo transfer in ICSI cycles: a randomised clinical trial. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2011; 51:315–20, Level I.
67. Eskandar MA, Abou-Setta AM, El-Amin M, Almushait MA, Sobande AA. Removal of cervical mucus prior to embryo transfer improves pregnancy rates in women undergoing assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;14:308–13, Level II-1.
68. Visschers BA, Bots RS, Peeters MF, Mol BW, van Dessel HJ. Removal of cer- vical mucus: effect on pregnancy rates in IVF/ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;15:310–5, Level I.
69. Derks RS, Farquhar C, Mol BW, Buckingham K, Heineman MJ. Techniques for preparation prior to embryo transfer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009:Cd007682, Level III.
70. Meriano J, Weissman A, Greenblatt EM, Ward S, Casper RF. The choice of embryo transfer catheter affects embryo implantation after IVF. Fertil Steril 2000;74:678–82, Level I.
71. 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, Level I.
72. Abou-Setta AM. Firm embryo transfer catheters for assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis using direct and adjusted indirect comparisons. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;12:191–8, Level III.
73. Gonen Y, Dirnfeld M, Goldman S, Koifman M, Abramovici H. Does the choice of catheter for embryo transfer influence the success rate of in- vitro fertilization? Hum Reprod 1991;6:1092–4, Level II-2.
74. McDonald JA, Norman RJ. A randomized controlled trial of a soft double lumen embryo transfer catheter versus a firm single lumen catheter: signif- icant improvements in pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1502–6, Level I.
75. van Weering HG, Schats R, McDonnell J, Vink JM, Vermeiden JP, Hompes PG. The impact of the embryo transfer catheter on the pregnancy rate in IVF. Hum Reprod 2002;17:666–70, Level I.
76. Choe JK, Nazari A, Check JH, Summers-Chase D, Swenson K. Marked improvement in clinical pregnancy rates following in vitro fertilization- embryo transfer seen when transfer technique and catheter were changed. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2001;28:223–4, Level II-2.
77. Ghazzawi IM, Al-Hasani S, Karaki R, Souso S. Transfer technique and cath- eter choice influence the incidence of transcervical embryo expulsion and the outcome of IVF. Hum Reprod 1999;14:677–82, Level I.
78. De Placido G, Wilding M, Stina I, Mollo A, Alviggi E, Tolino A, et al. The effect of ease of transfer and type of catheter used on pregnancy and implantation rates in an IVF program. J Assist Reprod Genet 2002;19: 14–8, Level II-2.
79. Abou-Setta AM, Al-Inany HG, Mansour RT, Serour GI, Aboulghar MA. Soft versus firm embryo transfer catheters for assisted reproduction: a sys- tematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2005;20:3114–21, Level III.
80. 81. 82. 83. 84.
85.
86.
87.
88. 89.
90.
91. 92. 93.
94.
95. 96. 97. 98. 99.
100.
Buckett WM. A review and meta-analysis of prospective trials comparing different catheters used for embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2006;85:728–34, Level III.
Allahbadia GN, Kadam K, Gandhi G, Arora S, Valliappan JB, Joshi A, et al. Embryo transfer using the SureView catheter-beacon in the womb. Fertil Steril 2010;93:344–50, Level I.
Ata B, Isiklar A, Balaban B, Urman B. Prospective randomized comparison of Wallace and Labotect embryo transfer catheters. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;14:471–6, Level I.
Boone WR, Johnson JE, Blackhurst DM, Crane MM. Cook versus Edwards- Wallace: are there differences in flexible catheters? J Assist Reprod Genet 2001;18:15–7, Level I.
Coroleu B, Barri PN, Carreras O, Belil I, Buxaderas R, Veiga A, et al. Effect of using an echogenic catheter for ultrasound-guided embryo transfer in an IVF programme: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Hum Reprod 2006;21:1809–15, Level I.
El-Shawarby SA, Ravhon A, Skull J, Ellenbogen A, Trew G, Lavery S. A pro- spective randomized controlled trial of Wallace and Rocket embryo trans- fer catheters. Reprod Biomed Online 2008;17:549–52, Level I.
Karande V, Hazlett D, Vietzke M, Gleicher N. A prospective randomized comparison of the Wallace catheter and the Cook Echo-Tip catheter for ul- trasound-guided embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2002;77:826–30, Level I. McIlveen M, Lok FD, Pritchard J, Lashen H. Modern embryo transfer cath- eters and pregnancy outcome: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2005;84:996–1000, Level I.
Rhodes TL, Higdon HL 3rd, Boone WR. Comparison of pregnancy rates for two embryo-transfer catheters. Fertil Steril 2007;87:411–6, Level I. Saldeen P, Abou-Setta AM, Bergh T, Sundstrom P, Holte J. A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing two embryo transfer catheters in an ART program. Fertil Steril 2008;90:599–603, Level I.
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, Level I.
Urman B, Aksoy S, Alatas C, Mercan R, Nuhoglu A, Isiklar A, et al. Comparing two embryo transfer catheters. Use of a trial transfer to deter- mine the catheter applied. J Reprod Med 2000;45:135–8, Level II-2. Foutouh IA, Youssef M, Tolba M, Rushdi M, Nakieb A, Meguid WA. Does embryo transfer catheter type affect pregnancy rate? Middle East Fertil Soc J 2003;8:154–8, Level I.
Aboulfotouh I, Abou-Setta AM, Khattab S, Mohsen IA, Askalani A, el- Din RE. Firm versus soft embryo transfer catheters under ultrasound guid- ance: does catheter choice really influence the pregnancy rates? Fertil Steril 2008;89:1261–2, Level II-2.
Coroleu B, Barri PN, Carreras O, Martinez F, Parriego M, Hereter L, et al. The influence of the depth of embryo replacement into the uterine cavity on im- plantation rates after IVF: a controlled, ultrasound-guided study. Hum Re- prod 2002;17:341–6, Level I.
Franco JG Jr. Martins AM, Baruffi RL, Mauri AL, Petersen CG, Felipe V, et al. Best site for embryo transfer: the upper or lower half of endometrial cavity? Hum Reprod 2004;19:1785–90, Level I.
Kwon H, Choi DH, Kim EK. Absolute position versus relative position in em- bryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2015; 13:78, Level I.
Pacchiarotti A, Mohamed MA, Micara G, Tranquilli D, Linari A, Espinola SM, et al. The impact of the depth of embryo replacement on IVF outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet 2007;24:189–93, Level I.
Rosenlund B, Sjoblom P, Hillensjo T. Pregnancy outcome related to the site of embryo deposition in the uterus. J Assist Reprod Genet 1996;13: 511–3, Level II-2.
Oliveira JB, Martins AM, Baruffi RL, Mauri AL, Petersen CG, Felipe V, et al. Increased implantation and pregnancy rates obtained by placing the tip of the transfer catheter in the central area of the endometrial cavity. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;9:435–41, Level II-2.
Cavagna M, Contart P, Petersen CG, Mauri AL, Martins AM, Baruffi RL, et al. Implantation sites after embryo transfer into the central area of the uterine cavity. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;13:541–6, Level II-2.
VOL. 107 NO. 4 / APRIL 2017
894
Page 63 of 69
70