Utility of in vitro fertilization at diagnostic laparoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare stimulation and outcome variables for IVF in stimulated cycles when ova are retrieved during diagnostic infertility laparoscopy versus transvaginal ultrasound (US) directed retrieval and to investigate the presence of unexpected failed fertilization in the diagnostic laparoscopy group, which allows an opportunity to diagnosis an etiology of infertility based on gamete interaction.

DESIGN

Consecutive patients who needed infertility diagnostic laparoscopy and agreed to combination with IVF were compared with concurrent patients undergoing transvaginal US IVF. Male factor screening parameters (semen analysis, sperm penetrating assay) and resultant fertilization were analyzed for these patients.

SETTING

The George Washington University Hospital, a tertiary referral center offering assisted reproductive technologies. Patients for diagnostic laparoscopy combined with IVF were enrolled in the Program of Oocyte Retrieval at Diagnostic Laparoscopy (PORDL).

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred twenty-four women enrolled for diagnostic laparoscopy combined with IVF; 237 women were concurrently enrolled for transvaginal US IVF.

RESULTS

Response variables (number of follicles, days of monitoring, ampules of hMG, maximum E2) between the two groups were similar. Outcome variables (ova retrieved, ova fertilized, ova cleaved, clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transferred) were similar despite a significantly higher number of embryos transferred for the transvaginal US group. The clinical pregnancy rate per cycle was similar, 26% versus 28% for the women in the transvaginal US versus those women in the PORDL group, as was the clinical pregnancy rate per ET, 31% versus 34%, respectively. The number of fertilized ova for each group was not significantly different: 5.5 +/- 0.3 for the transvaginal group versus 4.8 +/- 0.4 for the PORDL group. Patients in the PORDL group with a known male factor (group B) had a lower fertilization rate than those with no male factor (group A). Within the group A with no detectable male factor prospectively, 17.2% had unexpectedly poor fertilization (group A1), whereas the rest of the group A patients had higher fertilization rates as was expected (group A2). The clinical pregnancy rate per ET for group A1 was 0% compared with 43.4% for the group A2 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In vitro fertilization can be successfully performed during diagnostic laparoscopy yielding comparable results to transvaginal ultrasound IVF while gaining diagnostic information concerning sperm-ova interaction (i.e., fertilization).