Journal of Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences and Technology

Register      Login

VOLUME 1 , ISSUE 1 ( May-August, 2016 ) > List of Articles


Comparison of Implantation Rates in Ultrasound-guided vs Clinical Touch Embryo Transfer

Manvi Jindal, ML Swarankar

Citation Information : Jindal M, Swarankar M. Comparison of Implantation Rates in Ultrasound-guided vs Clinical Touch Embryo Transfer. J Mahatma Gandhi Univ Med Sci Tech 2016; 1 (1):10-14.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10057-0003

Published Online: 01-08-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; The Author(s).



The present study was conducted in the fertility unit of a medical college to compare the implantation rate of embryo in ultrasound-guided vs clinical touch method of embryo transfer. Today, approximately 80% of women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) will reach the embryo transfer stage with good quality embryos. Traditionally, the ‘clinical touch’ method has been used to guide placement of the embryo transfer. The use of ultrasound to guide embryo transfer would allow accurate and atraumatic positioning of the catheter tip near the uterine fundus.

Materials and methods

A prospective study was conducted at fertility center of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital. A total 100 patients requiring IVF, from a period of July 2011—July 2013 were taken into the study. A total of 50 patients were subjected to USG-guided embryo transfer and 50 patients were subjected to clinical touch embryo transfer. Detailed patient history, clinical examination, relevant investigation and details of procedure were entered in a prestructured proforma. The data were entered and analyzed in Microsoft Office Excel.


There was a significant improvement in the implantation rates in the USG-guided group (31.9%) as compared to clinical touch group (24.3%). There was also a significant improvement in the pregnancy rates in the USG-guided group (40%) as compared to the clinical touch group (28%). Compared with the traditional clinical touch method, the abdominal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer was found to have a number of advantages.

How to cite this article

Jindal M, Swarankar ML, Garg S, Sharma U. Comparison of Implantation Rates in Ultrasound- guided vs Clinical Touch Embryo Transfer. J Mahatma Gandhi Univ Med Sci Tech 2016;1(1):10-14.

PDF Share
  1. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 978 Aug 12;2(8085):366.
  2. New approaches to ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 1998 Jun; 13 Suppl 3: 1-13.
  3. Culture of viable human blastocysts in defined sequential serum-free media. Hum Reprod 1998;13(suppl 3):148e159.
  4. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: a controlled trial. Fertil Steril 1999;55:559-562.
  5. Metallothioneins expression and labile zinc content in spermatozoa of fertile males and subfertile patients with oligoasthenoteratozoospermia Periodicum biologorum/Vitale, Branko (ur.).-Zagreb: Hrvatsko prirodoslovno društvo 2013;64-64.
  6. Ultrasound versus ‘clinical touch’ for catheter guidance during embryo transfer in women. Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010;(1),PP. CD006107, ISSN 1469-493X
  7. Implantation, clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates after introduction of ultrasound-guided embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed 2008;17(1):88-93.
  8. Ultrasound-guidance during embryo transfer: a prospective, single operator, randomized, controlled trial. Fertil & Steril, Med J Obstet Gynecol 2014;2(4):1047.
  9. A randomized controlled clini trial of 2295 ultrasound-guided embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 2008;23(5):1101-1106.
  10. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer does not offer any benefit in clinical outcome: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2007;22(5):1327-1334.
  11. Abdominal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer improves clinical pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization: Experiences from 330 clinical investigations. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2005 Jan; 22(1):3-8.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.