Firm embryo transfer catheters for assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis using direct and adjusted indirect comparisons

被引:22
作者
Abou-Setta, AM [1 ]
机构
[1] Egyptian IVF ET Ctr, Cairo 11431, Egypt
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
embryo transfer; embryo transfer catheter; embryo transfer technique; randomized controlled trial(s);
D O I
10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60860-7
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
A systematic review of published evidence on firm embryo transfer catheters is presented. Extensive searches were conducted for full-text manuscripts, abstracts, ongoing and unpublished trials. Direct and adjusted indirect comparisons were undertaken, where appropriate. Twenty-six randomized controlled trials comparing embryo transfer catheters were identified. Only two trials (3 14 transfers) compared different firm embryo catheters. Using direct comparison, both the Tom Cat and Tefcat catheters demonstrated statistically significant increased chances of clinical pregnancy compared with the Tight Difficult Transfer (TDT) catheter (P = 0.007; OR = 3.67, 95% CI = 1.48-9. 10 and P < 0.0001; OR = 4.71, 95% CI = 2.34-9.48 respectively). The implantation rates were also higher with the Tom Cat and Tefcat catheters than the TDT catheter (P = 0.005; OR = 3.67, 95% CI = 1.48-9. 10 and P < 0.00001; OR = 4.29, 95% CI = 2.45-7.50 respectively). Using adjusted indirect comparison, Tom Cat and Tefcat catheters were compared, and shown to have similar pregnancy and implantation rates (OR = 0.99; 95% CI = -0.87-1.79 and OR = 0.86; 95% CI = -0.77-1.35). In conclusion, both Tom Cat and Tefcat catheters dive better outcomes than the TDT catheter, but are similar to each other.
引用
收藏
页码:191 / 198
页数:8
相关论文
共 57 条
[1]   Ultrasound-guided versus clinical touch embryo transfer: A systematic review & meta-analysis. [J].
Abou-Setta, AM ;
Al-Inany, HG ;
Mansour, RT ;
Aboulghar, MM ;
Serour, GI ;
Aboulghar, MA .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2005, 84 :S51-S52
[2]   Soft versus firm embryo transfer catheters for assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Abou-Setta, AM ;
Al-Inany, HG ;
Mansour, RT ;
Serour, GI ;
Aboulghar, MA .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2005, 20 (11) :3114-3121
[3]  
ALINANY HG, 2006, COCHRANE DATABASE SY
[4]   A prospective randomized comparison of the Wallace catheter and the Sure-View catheter for ultrasound-guided embryo transfer (ET). [J].
Allahbadia, GN ;
Athavale, UR ;
Kadam, KS ;
Gandhi, GN ;
Digra, GS ;
Kaur, K .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2005, 84 :S117-S117
[5]   TRANSFER OF EMBRYOS INTO THE UTERUS - HOW MUCH DO TECHNICAL FACTORS AFFECT PREGNANCY RATES [J].
ALSHAWAF, T ;
DAVE, R ;
HARPER, J ;
LINEHAN, D ;
RILEY, P ;
CRAFT, I .
JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS, 1993, 10 (01) :31-36
[6]   The presence of blood in the transfer catheter negatively influences outcome at embryo transfer [J].
Alvero, R ;
Hearns-Stokes, RM ;
Catherino, WH ;
Leondires, MP ;
Segars, JH .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2003, 18 (09) :1848-1852
[7]   Does the selection of catheter for embryo transfer affect the success rate of an ART unit? [J].
Amorcho, B ;
Gomez, E ;
Pontes, L ;
Campos, I ;
Landeras, J ;
Munoz, M ;
Ballesteros, A ;
Remohí, J ;
Pellicer, A .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 1999, 14 :205-205
[8]   Cook versus Edwards-Wallace: Are there differences in flexible catheters? [J].
Boone, WR ;
Johnson, JE ;
Blackhurst, DM ;
Crane, MM .
JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS, 2001, 18 (01) :15-17
[9]   A meta-analysis of ultrasound-guided versus clinical touch embryo transfer [J].
Buckett, WM .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2003, 80 (04) :1037-1041
[10]  
BUCKETT WM, 2005, HUMAN REPROD S1, V20, pI22