Ultrasound guidance versus classical method for intrauterine insemination

Aliaa Saleh Abdulwahab; Maysoon Sharief

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20250499

Authors

Aliaa Saleh Abdulwahab Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Maternal and Child Hospital, Basrah, Iraq
Maysoon Sharief Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, College of Medicine, University of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20250499

Keywords:

Infertility, Intrauterine insemination, Pregnancy, Ultrasound

Abstract

Background: There are a wide range of treatment options available for unexplained infertility, such as expectant management, superovulation, intrauterine insemination (IUI) and In vitro fertilization (IVF). So, the objective was to compare clinical pregnancy rates in IUI with transabdominal ultrasound guidance (US-IUI) versus the “blind method” IUI.

Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial done at Basrah Maternity and Child Hospital/IVF Center during the period between 01 January 2020 till 01 March 2023. 130 couples with unexplained infertility were included. All couples underwent infertility assessment in day 2 or day 3 basal serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels and serum luteinizing hormone (LH) levels. Patients were divided randomly into 2 groups; 1^ST group (70 women) underwent IUI with transabdominal ultrasound guidance while the 2^nd group (60 women) undergoing IUI without ultrasound guidance.

Results: The mean age of the patients was 30.6 ± 4.0 years (range 25-40). Of the 267 cycles, 145 were carried out as US-guided and 122 were performed using the blind procedure. The overall pregnancy rate was 17%; one pregnancy were multiple pregnancies and 1 ended in abortion. There was no significant difference between the US-guided and blinded IUI groups regarding the multiple-pregnancy rate, abortion rate. The pregnancy rates were 23.4% and 13.9% respectively and the difference was statistically significant (p=0.049). In the US-guided group, 9.7% of the cases were difficult. In the blinded group, 26.2% were difficult.

Conclusions: The conventional blind method for intrauterine catheter insemination is recommended for patients undergoing IUI treatment.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, Racowsky C, de Mouzon J, Sokol R, et al. The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):393-406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.005

Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR, Boerma T, Vanderpoel S, Stevens GA. National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: a systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med. 2012;9(12):e1001356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001356

Sun H, Gong TT, Jiang YT, Zhang S, Zhao YH, Wu QJ. Global, regional, and national prevalence and disability-adjusted life-years for infertility in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: results from a global burden of disease study, 2017. Aging (Albany NY). 2019;11(23):10952-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.102497

Abdulrazaq AF, Noori HM. Epidemiology of Infertility in Al-Qaim, Al-Anbar, Iraq. Ann Trop Medi Health. 2019;22:39-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36295/ASRO.2019.22065

Milsom S, Duggan K, O'Sullivan S, Ogilvie M, Gunn AJ. Treatment of infertility with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism: 10-year experience in Auckland, New Zealand. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;52(3):293-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2012.01450.x

Gunn DD, Bates GW. Evidence-based approach to unexplained infertility: a systematic review. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1566-74.e1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.001

Diamond MP. Future evaluation and treatment of unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1457-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.03.005

Alvero S, Forman M. Treatment options: II. intrauterine insemination. In: Bayer SR, Alper MM, Penzias AS, editors. The Boston IVF handbook of infertility: a practical guide for practitioners who care for infertile couples. 4th ed. Bra Raton: CRC Press; 2018:72-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351241496-7

Jain S. Intrauterine insemination: current place in infertility management. Eur Med J. 2018;3:58-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33590/emj/10314775

Ombelet W. The revival of intrauterine insemination: evidencebased data have changed the picture. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2017;9(3):131-2.

Lee J, Hwang S, Lee J, Yoo J, Jang D, Hwang K, et al. Effect of insemination timing on pregnancy outcome in association with female age, sperm motility, sperm morphology and sperm concentration in intrauterine insemination. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2018;44(6):1100-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13625

De Rosa M, Zarrilli S, Di Sarno A, Milano N, Gaccione M, Boggia B, et al. Hyperprolactinemia in men: clinical and biochemical features and response to treatment. Endocrine. 2003;20(1-2):75-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1385/ENDO:20:1-2:75

Duran HE, Morshedi M, Kruger T, Oehninger S. Intrauterine insemination: a systematic review on determinants of success. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8(4):373-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/8.4.373

Oztekin P, Toth L, Murber A, Szendei G, Papp Z, Urbancsek J. Catheter type does not affect the outcome of intrauterine insemination treatment: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(3):699-704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.08.034

Oruc. L, Kos S, Beijer C, Braat DD, Nelen WL, Wetzels AM, et al. Techniques used for IUI: is it time for a change? Hum Reprod. 2017;32(9):1835-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex223

Polat. J, Buckingham K, Buckett W, Abou-Setta AM. Ultrasound versus ‘clinical touch’ for catheter guidance during embryo transfer in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;3:CD006107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006107.pub4

Dickey RP, Taylor SN, Lu PY, Sartor BM, Rye PH, Pyrzak R. Risk factors for high-order multiple pregnancy and multiple birth after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: results of 4,062 intrauterine insemination cycles. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(3):671-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.10.030

Berkovitz A, Biron-Shental T, Pasternak Y, Sharony R, Hershko-Klement A, Wiser A. Predictors of twin pregnancy after ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination in women with unexplained infertility. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2017;20():200-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2017.1279351

Ramon O, Matorras R, Corcostegui B, Meabe A, Burgos J, Exposito A, et al. Ultrasound-guided artificial insemination: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(5):1080-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den498

Oztekin D, Ozcinar E, Kose C, Gulhan I, Ozeren M, Tinar S. The use of ultrasound during intrauterine insemination in unexplained infertility may improve pregnancy outcomes. Med Princ Pract. 2013;22(3):291-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000345387

Gestel AS, Yilmaz N, Gorkem U, Inal HA, Seckin B, Gulerman C. Influence of ultrasound-guided artificial insemination on pregnancy rates: a randomized study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;289:207-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2965-y