Cited by 60Reproductive Health and TechnologiesSperm and Testicular FunctionReproductive Biology and Fertility

Fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP) versus intra-uterine insemination (IUI) in the treatment of unexplained infertility: a prospective randomized study

Kahn, Jarl A., Sunde, Arne, Koskemies, Aarne, von Düring, Vidar, Sørdal, Terje, Christensen, Flemming, Molne, Kåre·1993·Human Reproduction

Abstract

Prospective randomization of 60 couples with unexplained infertility was performed for treatment either with intrauterine insemination (IUI), using a volume of 0.5 ml of the inseminate, or Fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP), using a volume of 4 ml of inseminate. The protocols for ovarian stimulation and induction of ovulation were the same in the two groups. The two groups were similar concerning age of the female at the start of treatment and the number of follicles > 15 mm diameter, the serum oestradiol concentrations and the endometrial thickness on the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) administration. The mean (+/- SD) number of motile spermatozoa inseminated was significantly higher in the FSP group than in the IUI group (52 +/- 5 x 10(6) and 28 +/- 3 x 10(6) respectively). In the FSP group, 30 women were given a total of 52 treatment cycles; 14 clinical pregnancies occurred in this group, giving a pregnancy rate of 26.9% per cycle and 46.7% per woman. In the IUI group, 28 women were given a total of 51 treatment cycles; five clinical pregnancies occurred, giving a pregnancy rate of 9.8% per cycle and 17.9% per woman. The pregnancy rates per cycle and per woman in the FSP group were significantly higher than in the IUI group (P < 0.05, chi-square test). This study indicates that in the treatment of couples with unexplained infertility, Fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP) is more successful than intra-uterine insemination (IUI).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138161

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kahn, J. A., Sunde, A., Koskemies, A., von Düring, V., Sørdal, T., Christensen, F., & Molne, K.
Affiliations
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
1993-06
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
890-894
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W1895489457
Cited by
60
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Sperm and Testicular Function
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Biology and Fertility
Keywords
intrauterine insemination, unexplained infertility, assisted reproduction, clinical pregnancy rate, ovulation induction
MeSH terms
Adult, Fallopian Tubes, Female, Humans, Infertility, Female, Insemination, Artificial, Homologous, Male, Perfusion, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Sperm Count

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review