Customised fetal growth chart is used to individualise fetal weight for gestational age by adjusting for physiological variables known to affect birth weight and growth. Compared with the standard population-based growth chart, the customised growth chart allows for better distinction between normal and abnormal smallness and reduces the false positive and false negative diagnosis of fetal growth restriction. The charts are currently being introduced into clinical practice in the West Midlands as well as in several units around the country. A Medline and systematic review search from 1980 to 2004 was performed in order to collect information and evidence on the use of customised growth chart and its effect on perinatal outcome.
The purpose of this study was to compare the reproductive outcome of ultrasound-guided (USG) embryo transfers versus clinical touch embryo transfers. A statistically powered retrospective analysis of women undergoing fresh and frozen embryo transfers in a National Health Service-based tertiary referral centre in the Department of Reproductive Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester was carried out. A total of 1723 embryo transfers were included in the analysis. The implantation rate was significantly higher in the USG embryo transfer group compared with the non-USG embryo transfer group (fresh: 19.9 versus 9.5%, P < 0.0001; frozen: 13.1 versus 7.3%, P < 0.0004). The clinical pregnancy rate was also significantly higher in the former group (fresh: 26.9 versus 12.5%, P < 0.0001; frozen: 15.6 versus 8.9%, P < 0.0015). For the frozen embryos, the miscarriage rate was significantly elevated among the USG embryo transfer group [unadjusted rate ratio (RR) = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.04, 2.62], but this was of borderline significance when the model was adjusted for the potential confounders (adjusted RR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.997, 2.45). There was no difference in the ectopic pregnancy rates between the two groups. The findings of this study show that the practice of USG embryo transfer is associated with statistically higher implantation and clinical pregnancy rates in IVF.
Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRH-a) are used widely in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) cycles for assisted reproduction. At present, there is great debate about the influence of exogenous hormone activity on the hypothalamus-pituitary axis following pituitary desensitization. The objective of this comparative study was to investigate the pattern of luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and oestradiol in women undergoing ovarian stimulation with different GnRH-a preparations. We retrospectively analysed 201 women, aged between 27 and 43 years, who were referred consecutively to our infertility clinic between January 2002 and January 2003. All women had no endocrinopathies or occult ovarian failure as assessed by day-3 hormone profile. Women were enrolled in one of the following COS protocols: depot triptorelin long protocol (n = 38), buserelin long protocol (n = 101) or buserelin short protocol (n = 62). Recombinant FSH was used to induce ovulation. Treatment was monitored by transvaginal ultrasound scan and serum measurement of FSH, LH and oestradiol. Among the women initially included, 30 had cancelled cycles due to poor ovarian response. Serum LH levels were significantly higher in the short-protocol group compared with the long-protocol groups (p < 0.001). The number of follicles, oocyte yield, number of grade-I embryos and fertilization rate were significantly lower in the short-protocol group than in the long-protocol groups. These findings showed that LH concentrations are significantly higher in women undergoing reversible medical hypophysectomy with a GnRH-a short protocol than in women treated with a long protocol. The hypothesis of an LH ceiling is confirmed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.