Randomized controlled trial of cervical cap with intracervical reservoir versus standard intracervical injection to inseminate cryopreserved donor semen

C. Coulson, E. A. McLaughlin, S. Harris, W. C.L. Ford, M. G.R. Hull

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A prospective controlled study of donor insemination without sperm preparation or ovarian stimulation was performed to compare the use of a cervical cap incorporating an intracervical reservoir with a standard intracervical injection technique to inseminate 0.5 ml cryopreserved semen. Treatments were alternated in successive cycles in each patient after initial randomized selection. A total of 198 patients had 635 treatment cycles (median 3, range 1-7), 309 with the reservoir and 326 by standard injection. A total of 56 women became pregnant, 24 (7.8% per cycle) with the reservoir and 32 (9.8% per cycle) by injection. There were no significant differences between the pregnancy rates per cycle overall or cycle-specific cumulative rates calculated using the life-table method. There were no significant differences in age, parity, baseline gonadotrophin measurements, mid-luteal serum progesterone concentrations, frequency (of adverse fertility factors in the woman or her partner's cause of infertility between women who conceived and those who failed to conceive. We conclude that use of a cervical reservoir and cap for donor insemination does not offer any advantage over standard intracervical insemination.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)84-87
Number of pages4
JournalHuman Reproduction
Volume11
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 1996
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Female Contraceptive Devices
Insemination
Randomized Controlled Trials
Tissue Donors
Injections
Life Tables
Ovulation Induction
Corpus Luteum
Pregnancy Rate
Parity
Semen
Gonadotropins
Infertility
Progesterone
Fertility
Spermatozoa
Pregnant Women
Prospective Studies
Therapeutics
Serum

Cite this

Coulson, C. ; McLaughlin, E. A. ; Harris, S. ; Ford, W. C.L. ; Hull, M. G.R. / Randomized controlled trial of cervical cap with intracervical reservoir versus standard intracervical injection to inseminate cryopreserved donor semen. In: Human Reproduction. 1996 ; Vol. 11, No. 1. pp. 84-87.
@article{1d0528bd47284cccbb3d2f46862efd20,
title = "Randomized controlled trial of cervical cap with intracervical reservoir versus standard intracervical injection to inseminate cryopreserved donor semen",
abstract = "A prospective controlled study of donor insemination without sperm preparation or ovarian stimulation was performed to compare the use of a cervical cap incorporating an intracervical reservoir with a standard intracervical injection technique to inseminate 0.5 ml cryopreserved semen. Treatments were alternated in successive cycles in each patient after initial randomized selection. A total of 198 patients had 635 treatment cycles (median 3, range 1-7), 309 with the reservoir and 326 by standard injection. A total of 56 women became pregnant, 24 (7.8{\%} per cycle) with the reservoir and 32 (9.8{\%} per cycle) by injection. There were no significant differences between the pregnancy rates per cycle overall or cycle-specific cumulative rates calculated using the life-table method. There were no significant differences in age, parity, baseline gonadotrophin measurements, mid-luteal serum progesterone concentrations, frequency (of adverse fertility factors in the woman or her partner's cause of infertility between women who conceived and those who failed to conceive. We conclude that use of a cervical reservoir and cap for donor insemination does not offer any advantage over standard intracervical insemination.",
keywords = "Conception, Cryopreservation, Donor insemination, Randomized trial",
author = "C. Coulson and McLaughlin, {E. A.} and S. Harris and Ford, {W. C.L.} and Hull, {M. G.R.}",
year = "1996",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a019044",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "84--87",
journal = "Human Reproduction",
issn = "0268-1161",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

Randomized controlled trial of cervical cap with intracervical reservoir versus standard intracervical injection to inseminate cryopreserved donor semen. / Coulson, C.; McLaughlin, E. A.; Harris, S.; Ford, W. C.L.; Hull, M. G.R.

In: Human Reproduction, Vol. 11, No. 1, 01.01.1996, p. 84-87.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomized controlled trial of cervical cap with intracervical reservoir versus standard intracervical injection to inseminate cryopreserved donor semen

AU - Coulson, C.

AU - McLaughlin, E. A.

AU - Harris, S.

AU - Ford, W. C.L.

AU - Hull, M. G.R.

PY - 1996/1/1

Y1 - 1996/1/1

N2 - A prospective controlled study of donor insemination without sperm preparation or ovarian stimulation was performed to compare the use of a cervical cap incorporating an intracervical reservoir with a standard intracervical injection technique to inseminate 0.5 ml cryopreserved semen. Treatments were alternated in successive cycles in each patient after initial randomized selection. A total of 198 patients had 635 treatment cycles (median 3, range 1-7), 309 with the reservoir and 326 by standard injection. A total of 56 women became pregnant, 24 (7.8% per cycle) with the reservoir and 32 (9.8% per cycle) by injection. There were no significant differences between the pregnancy rates per cycle overall or cycle-specific cumulative rates calculated using the life-table method. There were no significant differences in age, parity, baseline gonadotrophin measurements, mid-luteal serum progesterone concentrations, frequency (of adverse fertility factors in the woman or her partner's cause of infertility between women who conceived and those who failed to conceive. We conclude that use of a cervical reservoir and cap for donor insemination does not offer any advantage over standard intracervical insemination.

AB - A prospective controlled study of donor insemination without sperm preparation or ovarian stimulation was performed to compare the use of a cervical cap incorporating an intracervical reservoir with a standard intracervical injection technique to inseminate 0.5 ml cryopreserved semen. Treatments were alternated in successive cycles in each patient after initial randomized selection. A total of 198 patients had 635 treatment cycles (median 3, range 1-7), 309 with the reservoir and 326 by standard injection. A total of 56 women became pregnant, 24 (7.8% per cycle) with the reservoir and 32 (9.8% per cycle) by injection. There were no significant differences between the pregnancy rates per cycle overall or cycle-specific cumulative rates calculated using the life-table method. There were no significant differences in age, parity, baseline gonadotrophin measurements, mid-luteal serum progesterone concentrations, frequency (of adverse fertility factors in the woman or her partner's cause of infertility between women who conceived and those who failed to conceive. We conclude that use of a cervical reservoir and cap for donor insemination does not offer any advantage over standard intracervical insemination.

KW - Conception

KW - Cryopreservation

KW - Donor insemination

KW - Randomized trial

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030026619&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a019044

DO - 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a019044

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 84

EP - 87

JO - Human Reproduction

JF - Human Reproduction

SN - 0268-1161

IS - 1

ER -