Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T15:12:19.156Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

46 - Intrauterine Insemination

from PART III - ASSISTED REPRODUCTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

By
Norman F. Angell ,
Hany F. Moustafa ,
Botros R. M. B. Rizk ,
Mary George Nawar ,
Christopher B. Rizk ,
Chris A. Huff ,
Ruth Kennedy ,
Scherri B. Holland ,
Julie Hazelton  and
Juan A. Garcia-Velasco
...Show all authors
Edited by
Botros R. M. B. Rizk ,
Juan A. Garcia-Velasco ,
Hassan N. Sallam  and
Antonis Makrigiannakis
Botros R. M. B. Rizk
Affiliation:
University of South Alabama
Juan A. Garcia-Velasco
Affiliation:
Rey Juan Carlos University School of Medicine,
Hassan N. Sallam
Affiliation:
University of Alexandria School of Medicine
Antonis Makrigiannakis
Affiliation:
University of Crete
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is one of the most commonly performed treatments for infertile or hypofertile couples. Although the technique was first reported by Dickinson in 1921 (1), it was not until the 1980s when IUI started to become popular. Over the past twenty-five years, there has been a substantial amount of research evaluating this method. As in much of infertility, methodological problems preclude clear conclusions. In particular, well-planned randomized controlled trials are rare. However, the data available allow us to scientifically treat our patients even if that science is not perfect.

INDICATIONS FOR IUI

General indications for IUI include cervical factor infertility, male infertility, minimal to mild endometriosis, and unexplained infertility (Table 46.1).

Cervical Factor

An abnormal postcoital test is frequently treated by IUI. However, the test is difficult to standardize and the predictability of the test is low. Inadequate cervical mucus is difficult to quantitate, and whether a threshold amount of cervical mucus is necessary for proper function also is unknown. The epidemic of cervical dysplasia secondary to HPV infection has resulted in a great number of cervical operations via cryotherapy, LEEP and cone biopsy, may result in removing significant amount of cervical glands. The impact of these interventions on subsequent fertility is variable.

An abnormal Spinbarkeit test may show either a low amount of cervical mucus or an increase in viscosity of the mucus. Similar to the above, the prediction of the effect of abnormal Spinbarkeit on fertility is uncertain.

Keywords

artificial inseminationcervical factorcontrolled ovarian hyperstimulationendometriosisintrauterine inseminationunexplained infertilityfollicular count
Type
Chapter
Information
Infertility and Assisted Reproduction , pp. 416 - 427
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dickinson, RL. Artificial impregnation: essays in tubal insemination. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1921;1:252–61.Google Scholar
Gerli, S, Gholami, H, Manna, C, Di Frega, AS, Vitiello, C, Unfer, V. Use of ethinyl estradiol to reverse the antiestrogenic effects of clomiphene citrate in patients undergoing intrauterine insemination: a comparative, randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(1):85–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nallella, KP, Sharma, RK, Aziz, N, Agarwal, A. Significance of sperm characteristics in the evaluation of male infertility. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(3):629–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, Y, Garcia, J, Jarow, JP, Wallach, EE. Successful management of infertility due to retrograde ejaculation using assisted reproductive technologies: a report of two cases. Arch Androl. 2004;50(6):391–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shieh, JY, Chen, SU, Wang, YH, Chang, HC, Ho, HN, Yang, YS. A protocol of electroejaculation and systematic assisted reproductive technology achieved high efficiency and efficacy for pregnancy for anejaculatory men with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84(4):535–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohl, DA, Wolf, LJ, Menge, AC, Christman, GM, Hurd, WW, Ansbacher, R, Smith, YR, Randolph, JF Jr. Electroejaculation and assisted reproductive technologies in the treatment of anejaculatory infertility. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(6):1249–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Fertility: assessment and treatment of people with fertility problems, Clinical guidelines No11. London: Abba Litho Ltd. UK, 2004.
Zimmerman, ER, Robertson, KR, Kim, H, Drobnis, EZ, Nakajima, ST. Semen preparation with the sperm select system versus a washing technique. Fertil Steril. 1994;61(2):269–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, JM, Mascha, E, Falcone, T, Attaran, M. Comparison of intrauterine and intracervical insemination with frozen donor sperm: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(5):792–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, PF, Katz, SL, Thompson, AK, Freund, RD. Cycle fecundity in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination. Influence of the number of mature follicles at hCG administration. J Reprod Med. 2002;47(7):535–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Perez-Medina, T, Bajo-Arenas, J, Salazar, F, Redondo, T, Sanfrutos, L, Alvarez, P, Engels, V. Endometrial polyps and their implication in the pregnancy rates of patients undergoing intrauterine insemination: a prospective, randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(6):1632–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stone, BA, Vargyas, JM, Ringler, GE, Stein, AL, Marrs, RP. Determinants of the outcome of intrauterine insemination: analysis of outcomes of 9963 consecutive cycles. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180(6 Pt. 1):1522–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathieu, C, Ecochard, R, Bied, V, Lornage, J, Czyba, JC. Cumulative conception rate following intrauterine artificial insemination with husband's spermatozoa: influence of husband's age. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(5):1090–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brzechffa, PR, Buyalos, RP. Female and male partner age and menotrophin requirements influence pregnancy rates with human menopausal gonadotrophin therapy in combination with intrauterine insemination. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(1):29–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nuojua-Huttunen, S, Tomas, C, Bloigu, R, Tuomivaara, L, Martikainen, H. Intrauterine insemination treatment in subfertility: an analysis of factors affecting outcome. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(3):698–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steures, P, Steeg, JW, Mol, BW, Eijkemans, MJ, Veen, F, Habbema, JD, Hompes, PG, Bossuyt, PM, Verhoeve, HR, Kasteren, YM, Dop, PA; CECERM (Collaborative Effort in Clinical Evaluation in Reproductive Medicine). Prediction of an ongoing pregnancy after intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(1):45–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iberico, G, Vioque, J, Ariza, N, Lozano, JM, Roca, M, Llacer, J, Bernabeu, R. Analysis of factors influencing pregnancy rates in homologous intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(5):1308–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khalil, MR, Rasmussen, PE, Erb, K, Laursen, SB, Rex, S, Westergaard, LG. Intrauterine insemination with donor semen. An evaluation of prognostic factors based on a review of 1131 cycles. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80(4):342–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizk, B. Clinical guidelines for treatment of selected cases of endometriosis by ART or surgery. American Society For Reproductive Medicine, 60th Annual Meeting, Postgraduate Course, Endometriosis Treatment: Medical, Surgical and Assisted Reproductive Technology. ASRM Postgraduate course syllabus. October 16, 2004.Google Scholar
Werbrouck, E, Spiessens, C, Meuleman, C, D'Hooghe, T. No difference in cycle pregnancy rate and in cumulative live-birth rate between women with surgically treated minimal to mild endometriosis and women with unexplained infertility after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(3):566–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sikandar, R, Virk, S, Lakhani, S, Sahab, H, Rizvi, J. Intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in the treatment of subfertility. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2005;15(12):782–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Tomlinson, MJ, Amissah-Arthur, JB, Thompson, KA, Kasraie, JL, Bentick, B. Prognostic indicators for intrauterine insemination (IUI): statistical model for IUI success. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(9):1892–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, MY, Chiang, CH, Hsieh, TT, Soong, YK, Hsu, KH. Use of the antral follicle count to predict the outcome of assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(3):505–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rumste, MM, Hartog, JE, Dumoulin, JC, Evers, JL, Land, JA. Is controlled ovarian stimulation in intrauterine insemination an acceptable therapy in couples with unexplained non-conception in the perspective of multiple pregnancies?Hum Reprod. 2006;21(3):701–4. Epub 2005 Oct 27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valbuena, D, Simon, C, Romero, JL, Remohi, J, Pellicer, A. Factors responsible for multiple pregnancies after ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination with gonadotropins. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1996;13(8):663–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tur, R, Barri, PN, Coroleu, B, Buxaderas, R, Parera, N, Balasch, J. Use of a prediction model for high-order multiple implantation after ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(1):116–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olufowobi, O, Sharif, K, Papaioannou, S, Mohamed, H, Neelakantan, D, Afnan, M. Role of rescue IVF-ET treatment in the management of high response in stimulated IUI cycles. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;25(2):166–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickey, RP, Pyrzak, R, Lu, PY, Taylor, SN, Rye, PH. Comparison of the sperm quality necessary for successful intrauterine insemination with World Health Organization threshold values for normal sperm. Fertil Steril. 1999;71(4):684–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westerlaken, , Naaktgeboren, N, Helmerhorst, FM. Evaluation of pregnancy rates after intrauterine insemination according to indication, age, and sperm parameters. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1998;15(6):359–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campana, A, Sakkas, D, Stalberg, A, Bianchi, PG, Comte, I, Pache, T, Walker, D. Intrauterine insemination: evaluation of the results according to the woman's age, sperm quality, total sperm count per insemination and life table analysis. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(4):732–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, DC, Hollenbeck, BK, Smith, GD, Randolph, JF, Christman, GM, Smith, YR, Lebovic, DI, Ohl, DA. Processed total motile sperm count correlates with pregnancy outcome after intrauterine insemination. Urology. 2002;60(3):497–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voorhis, BJ, Barnett, M, Sparks, AE, Syrop, CH, Rosenthal, G, Dawson, J. Effect of the total motile sperm count on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2001;75(4):661–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weert, JM, Repping, S, Voorhis, BJ, Veen, F, Bossuyt, PM, Mol, BW. Performance of the postwash total motile sperm count as a predictor of pregnancy at the time of intrauterine insemination: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(3):612–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yalti, S, Gurbuz, B, Sezer, H, Celik, S. Effects of semen characteristics on IUI combined with mild ovarian stimulation. Arch Androl. 2004;50(4):239–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shulman, A, Hauser, R, Lipitz, S, Frenkel, Y, Dor, J, Bider, D, Mashiach, S, Yogev, L, Yavetz, H. Sperm motility is a major determinant of pregnancy outcome following intrauterine insemination. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1998;15(6):381–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pasqualotto, EB, Daitch, JA, Hendin, BN, Falcone, T, Thomas, AJ Jr., Nelson, DR, Agarwal, A. Relationship of total motile sperm count and percentage motile sperm to successful pregnancy rates following intrauterine insemination. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1999;16(9):476–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burr, RW, Siegberg, R, Flaherty, SP, Wang, XJ, Matthews, CD. The influence of sperm morphology and the number of motile sperm inseminated on the outcome of intrauterine insemination combined with mild ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 1996;65(1):127–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spiessens, C, Vanderschueren, D, Meuleman, C, D'Hooghe, T. Isolated teratozoospermia and intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(5):1185–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shibahara, H, Obara, H, Ayustawati, Hirano Y, Suzuki, T, Ohno, A, Takamizawa, S, Suzuki, M. Prediction of pregnancy by intrauterine insemination using CASA estimates and strict criteria in patients with male factor infertility. Int J Androl. 2004;27(2):63–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grigoriou, O, Pantos, K, Makrakis, E, Hassiakos, D, Konidaris, S, Creatsas, G. Impact of isolated teratozoospermia on the outcome of intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(3):773–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohlen, BJ, Vandekerckhove, P, te Velde, ER, Habbema, JD. Timed intercourse versus intra-uterine insemination with or without ovarian hyperstimulation for subfertility in men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000360. Review.Google ScholarPubMed
Verhulst, SM, Cohlen, BJ, Hughes, E, Te Velde, E, Heineman, MJ. Intra-uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):CD001838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeyneloglu, HB, Arici, A, Olive, DL, Duleba, AJ. Comparison of intrauterine insemination with timed intercourse in superovulated cycles with gonadotropins: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(3):486–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, SF. Intrauterine insemination. In (Brinsden, PR Ed.), Textbook of In Vitro Fertilization and Assisted Reproduction. Chapter 13. Carnforth, UK: Parthenon Publishing, 2005; pp. 259–69.Google Scholar
Noci, I, Dabizzi, S, Evangelisti, P, Cozzi, C, Cameron Smith, M, Criscuoli, L, Fuzzi, B, Branconi, F. Evaluation of clinical efficacy of three different insemination techniques in couple infertility. A randomized study. Minerva Ginecol. 2007;59(1):11–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Tiemessen, CH, Bots, RS, Peeters, MF, Evers, JL. Direct intraperitoneal insemination compared to intrauterine insemination in superovulated cycles: a randomized cross-over study. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1997;44(3):149–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sills, ES, Palermo, GD. Intrauterine pregnancy following low-dose gonadotropin ovulation induction and direct intraperitoneal insemination for severe cervical stenosis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2002; Nov. 26;2(1):9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flierman, PA, Hogerzeil, HV, Hemrika, DJ. A prospective, randomized, cross-over comparison of two methods of artificial insemination by donor on the incidence of conception: intracervical insemination by straw versus cervical cap. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(9):1945–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, N, Palmer, JR. A comparison of intrauterine versus intracervical insemination in fertile single women. Fertil Steril. 2001;75(4):656–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patton, PE, Burry, KA, Thurmond, A, Novy, MJ, Wolf, DP. Intrauterine insemination outperforms intracervical insemination in a randomized, controlled study with frozen, donor semen. Fertil Steril. 1992;57(3):559–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurd, WW, Randolph, JF Jr., Ansbacher, R, Menge, AC, Ohl, DA, Brown, AN. Comparison of intracervical, intrauterine, and intratubal techniques for donor insemination. Fertil Steril. 1993;59(2):339–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizk, B, Lenton, W, Vere, M, Martin, R, Latarche, E. Superovulation and intrauterine insemination in couples with azoospermia after failed intracervical insemination. 7th World Congress on In vitro Fertilization and Assisted Procreation, Paris, June 1991. Hum Reprod, Abstract book, p. 171–2.Google Scholar
Guzick, DS, Carson, SA, Coutifaris, C, Overstreet, JW, Factor- Litvak, P, Steinkampf, MP, Hill, JA, Mastroianni, L, Buster, JE, Nakajima, ST, Vogel, DL, Canfield, RE. Efficacy of superovulation and intrauterine insemination in the treatment of infertility. National Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network. N Engl J Med. 1999; Jan. 21;340(3):177–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trout, SW, Kemmann, E. Fallopian sperm perfusion versus intrauterine insemination: a randomized controlled trial and metaanalysis of the literature. Fertil Steril. 1999;71(5):881–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanchin, R, Olivennes, F, Righini, C, Hazout, A, Schwab, B, Frydman, R. A new system for fallopian tube sperm perfusion leads to pregnancy rates twice as high as standard intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(3):505–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, JA, Sunde, A, Koskemies, A, During, V, Sordal, T, Christensen, F, Molne, K. Fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP) versus intra-uterine insemination (IUI) in the treatment of unexplained infertility: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(6):890–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ricci, G, Nucera, G, Pozzobon, C, Boscolo, R, Giolo, E, Guaschino, S. A simple method for fallopian tube sperm perfusion using a blocking device in the treatment of unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(6):1242–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cantineau, AE, Cohlen, BJ, Al-Inany, H, Heineman, MJ. Intrauterine insemination versus fallopian tube sperm perfusion for non tubal infertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(3): CD001502. Review.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nuojua-Huttunen, S, Tuomivaara, L, Juntunen, K, Tomas, C, Martikainen, H. Comparison of fallopian tube sperm perfusion with intrauterine insemination in the treatment of infertility. Fertil Steril. 1997;67(5):939–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mamas, L. Comparison of fallopian tube sperm perfusion and intrauterine tuboperitoneal insemination: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(3):735–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nulsen, JC, Walsh, S, Dumez, S, Metzger, DA. A randomized and longitudinal study of human menopausal gonadotropin with intrauterine insemination in the treatment of infertility. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;82(5):780–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Chaffkin, LM, Nulsen, JC, Luciano, AA, Metzger, DA. A comparative analysis of the cycle fecundity rates associated with combined human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) and intrauterine insemination (IUI) versus either hMG or IUI alone. Fertil Steril. 1991;55(2):252–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohlen, BJ, te Velde, ER, Kooij, RJ, Looman, CW, Habbema, JD. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination for treating male subfertility: a controlled study. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(6):1553–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martinez, AR, Bernardus, RE, Voorhorst, FJ, Vermeiden, JP, Schoemaker, J. Intrauterine insemination does and clomiphene citrate does not improve fecundity in couples with infertility due to male or idiopathic factors: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril. 1990;53(5):847–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arcaini, L, Bianchi, S, Baglioni, A, Marchini, M, Tozzi, L, Fedele, L. Superovulation and intrauterine insemination vs. superovulation alone in the treatment of unexplained infertility. A randomized study. J Reprod Med. 1996;41(8):614–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Mahani, IM, Afnan, M. The pregnancy rates with intrauterine insemination (IUI) in superovulated cycles employing different protocols (clomiphene citrate (CC), human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) and HMG + CC) and in natural ovulatory cycle. J Pak Med Assoc. 2004;54(10):503–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Demirol, A, Gurgan, T. Comparison of different gonadotrophin preparations in intrauterine insemination cycles for the treatment of unexplained infertility: a prospective, randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(1):97–100. Epub 2006 Sep 5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dankert, T, Kremer, JA, Cohlen, BJ, Hamilton, CJ, Pasker-de Jong, PC, Straatman, H, Dop, PA. A randomized clinical trial of clomiphene citrate versus low dose recombinant FSH for ovarian hyperstimulation in intrauterine insemination cycles for unexplained and male subfertility. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(3):792–7. Epub 2006 Nov 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baysoy, A, Serdaroglu, H, Jamal, H, Karatekeli, E, Ozornek, H, Attar, E. Letrozole versus human menopausal gonadotrophin in women undergoing intrauterine insemination. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13(2):208–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jee, BC, Ku, SY, Suh, CS, Kim, KC, Lee, WD, Kim, SH. Use of letrozole versus clomiphene citrate combined with gonadotropins in intrauterine insemination cycles: a pilot study. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(6):1774–7. Epub 2006 May 4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizk, B. Epidemiology of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: iatrogenic and spontaneous. In Rizk, B (Ed.), Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome. Chapter 2. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006; pp. 10–42.Google Scholar
Mitwally, MF, Biljan, MM, Casper, RF. Pregnancy outcome after the use of an aromatase inhibitor for ovarian stimulation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(2):381–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casper, RF, Mitwally, MF. Review: aromatase inhibitors for ovulation induction. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91(3):760–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dhaliwal, LK, Sialy, RK, Gopalan, S, Majumdar, S. Minimal stimulation protocol for use with intrauterine insemination in the treatment of infertility. Int J Fertil Womens Med. 2000;45(3):232–5.Google Scholar
Crosignani, PG, Somigliana, E; Intrauterine Insemination Study Group. Effect of GnRH antagonists in FSH mildly stimulated intrauterine insemination cycles: a multicentre randomized trial. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(2):500–5. Epub 2006 Oct 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allegra, A, Marino, A, Coffaro, F, Scaglione, P, Sammartano, F, Rizza, G, Volpes, A. GnRH antagonist-induced inhibition of the premature LH surge increases pregnancy rates in IUI-stimulated cycles. A prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(1):101–18. Epub 2006 Oct 10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Checa, MA, Prat, M, Robles, A, Carreras, R. Use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists to overcome the drawbacks of intrauterine insemination on weekends. Fertil Steril. 2006; 85(3):573–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matorras, R, Ramon, O, Exposito, A, Corcostegui, B, Ocerin, I, Gonzalez-Lopera, S, Rodriguez-Escudero, FJ. Gn-RH antagonists in intrauterine insemination: the weekend-free protocol. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2006;23(2):51–4. Epub 2006 Mar 22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizk, B. Prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. In Rizk, B (Ed.), Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome. Cambridge: United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2006: chapter 7; 130–199.Google Scholar
Vermesh, M, Kletzky, OA, Davajan, V, Israel, R. Monitoring techniques to predict and detect ovulation. Fertil Steril. 1987;47(2):259–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kosmas, IP, Tatsioni, A, Fatemi, HM, Kolibianakis, EM, Tournaye, H, Devroey, P. Human chorionic gonadotropin administration vs. luteinizing monitoring for intrauterine insemination timing, after administration of clomiphene citrate: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(3):607–12. Epub 2006 Dec 14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alborzi, S, Motazedian, S, Parsanezhad, ME, Jannati, S. Comparison of the effectiveness of single intrauterine insemination (IUI) versus double IUI per cycle in infertile patients. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(3):595–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cantineau, AE, Heineman, MJ, Cohlen, BJ. Single versus double intrauterine insemination (IUI) in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1):CD003854. Review.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ng, EH, Makkar, G, Yeung, WS, Ho, PC. A randomized comparison of three insemination methods in an artificial insemination program using husbands semen. J Reprod Med. 2003;48(7):542–6.Google Scholar
Liu, W, Gong, F, Luo, K, Lu, G. Comparing the pregnancy rates of one versus two intrauterine inseminations (IUIs) in male factor and idiopathic infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2006;23(2):75–9. Epub 2006 Feb 23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ragni, G, Maggioni, P, Guermandi, E, Testa, A, Baroni, E, Colombo, M, Crosignani, PG. Efficacy of double intrauterine insemination in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycles. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(4):619–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casadei, L, Zamaro, V, Calcagni, M, Ticconi, C, Dorrucci, M, Piccione, E. Homologous intrauterine insemination in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycles: a comparison among three different regimens. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;129(2):155–61. Epub 2006 May 9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, FJ, Chang, SY, Chang, JC, Kung, FT, Wu, JF, Tsai, MY. Timed intercourse after intrauterine insemination for treatment of infertility. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1998;80(2):257–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crosignani, PG, Somigliana, E, Colombo, M et al. The current role of intrauterine insemination for the treatment of male factor and unexplained infertility. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2005;10:29–42.Google Scholar
Dickey, RP, Taylor, SN, Lu, PY, Sartor, BM, Rye, PH, Pyrzak, R. Effect of diagnosis, age, sperm quality, and number of preovulatory follicles on the outcome of multiple cycles of clomiphene citrate-intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 2002;78(5):1088–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aboulghar, M, Mansour, R, Serour, G, Abdrazek, A, Amin, Y, Rhodes, C. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination for treatment of unexplained infertility should be limited to a maximum of three trials. Fertil Steril. 2001; 75(1):88–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vermeylen, AM, D'Hooghe, T, Debrock, S, Meeuwis, L, Meuleman, C, Spiessens, C. The type of catheter has no impact on the pregnancy rate after intrauterine insemination: a randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(9):2364–7. Epub 2006 May 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fancsovits, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, PB, Acres, ML, Proctor, JG, Higdon, HL 3rd, Boone, WR. Flexible versus rigid intrauterine insemination catheters: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2005; 83(5):1544–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boomsma, CM, Heineman, MJ, Cohlen, BJ, Farquhar, C. Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(3):CD004507. Review.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carrell, DT, Kuneck, PH, Peterson, CM, Hatasaka, HH, Jones, KP, Campbell, BF. A randomized, prospective analysis of five sperm preparation techniques before intrauterine insemination of husband sperm. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(1):122–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dodson, WC, Moessner, J, Miller, J, Legro, RS, Gnatuk, CL. A randomized comparison of the methods of sperm preparation for intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 1998;70(3):574–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henkel, RR, Schill, WB. Sperm preparation for ART. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2003;1:108. Review.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fountain, S, Rizk, B, Palmer, C, Wada, I, Macnamee, M, Blayney, M, Brinsden, P, Smith, SK. A prospective randomized controlled trial of pentoxifylline in severe male factor infertility and previous failure of in vitro fertilization. The 49th Annual Meeting of the AFS, Montreal, Canada, October 1993. Fertil Steril, ProgramSupplement, 1993, S17–18.Google Scholar
Brown, SE, Toner, JP, Schnorr, JA, Williams, SC, Gibbons, WE, Ziegler, D, Oehninger, S. Vaginal misoprostol enhances intrauterine insemination. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:96–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toner, J, Ziegler, D, Brown, S, Gibbons, WE, Oehninger, S, Schnorr, JA, Williams, SC. High rates of cramping with misoprotol administration for intrauterine insemination. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandekerckhove, P, Lilford, R, Vail, A, Hughes, E. Kinin enhancing drugs for unexplained subfertility in men (Cochrane Review). In The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2002. Oxford: Update Software.Google Scholar
Grigoriou, O, Makrakis, E, Konidaris, S, Hassiakos, D, Papadias, K, Baka, S, Creatsas, G. Effect of sperm treatment with exogenous platelet-activating factor on the outcome of intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(3):618–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roudebush, WE, Toledo, AA, Kort, HI, Mitchell-Leef, D, Elsner, CW, Massey, JB. Platelet-activating factor significantly enhances intrauterine insemination pregnancy rates in non-male factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(1):52–6. Erratum in: Fertil Steril. 2004;82(3):768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al-Ramahi, M, Leader, A, Leveille, MC. An allergic reaction following intrauterine insemination. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(12):3368–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nuojua-Huttunen, S, Gissler, M, Martikainen, H, Tuomivaara, L. Obstetric and perinatal outcome of pregnancies after intrauterine insemination. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(8):2110–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, JX, Norman, RJ, Kristiansson, P. The effect of various infertility treatments on the risk of preterm birth. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(4):945–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickey, RP, Taylor, SN, Lu, PY, Sartor, BM, Rye, PH, Pyrzak, R. Relationship of follicle numbers and estradiol levels to multiple implantation in 3,608 intrauterine insemination cycles. Fertil Steril. 2001;75(1):69–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizk, B, Dickey, RP. In: Dickey, RP, Brinsden, PR, Pryzak, R (Eds.), Intrauterine insemination. Cambridge: United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2009, in press.Google Scholar
Rizk, B, Dill, SR. Counseling HIV patients pursuing infertility investigation and treatment. Hum Reprod 1997;12(3):415–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Englert, Y, Lesage, B, Vooren, JP, Liesnard, C, Place, I, Vannin, AS, Emiliani, S, Delbaere, A. Medically assisted reproduction in the presence of chronic viral diseases. Hum Reprod Update. 2004;10(2):149–62. Review.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, LU, Johnson, MR, Barton, S, Nelson, MR, Sontag, G, Smith, JR, Gotch, FM, Gilmour, JW. Evaluation of sperm washing as a potential method of reducing HIV transmission in HIV-discordant couples wishing to have children. AIDS. 1999;13(6):645–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauer, MV. Sperm washing techniques address the fertility needs of HIV-seropositive men: a clinical review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10(1):135–40. Review.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kato, S, Hanabusa, H, Kaneko, S, Takakuwa, K, Suzuki, M, Kuji, N, Jinno, M, Tanaka, R, Kojima, K, Iwashita, M, Yoshimura, Y, Tanaka, K. Complete removal of HIV-1 RNA and proviral DNA from semen by the swim-up method: assisted reproduction technique using spermatozoa free from HIV-1. AIDS. 2006;20(7):967–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrido, N, Meseguer, M, Remohí, J, Simón, C, Pellicer, A. Semen characteristics in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)- and hepatitis C (HCV)-seropositive males: predictors of the success of viral removal after sperm washing. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(4):1028–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savasi, V, Ferrazzi, E, Lanzani, C, Oneta, M, Parrilla, B, Persico, T. Safety of sperm washing and ART outcome in 741 HIV-1- serodiscordant couples. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(3):772–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semprini, AE, Fiore, S. HIV and reproduction. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2004;16(3):257–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicopoullos, JD, Almeida, PA, Ramsay, JW, Gilling-Smith, C. The effect of human immunodeficiency virus on sperm parameters and the outcome of intrauterine insemination following sperm washing. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(10):2289–97. Epub 2004 Jul 8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohl, J, Partisani, M, Wittemer, C, Schmitt, MP, Cranz, C, Stoll-Keller, F, Rongieres, C, Bettahar-Lebugle, K, Lang, JM, Nisand, I. Assisted reproduction techniques for HIV serodiscordant couples: 18 months of experience. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(6):1244–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×