Comparison between Single and Double Cleavage-Stage Embryo Transfers, Single and Double Blastocyst Transfers in a South East Asian In Vitro Fertilisation Centre

INTRODUCTION@#This study investigated the differences in clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live birth rate (LBR) and multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) between double cleavage-stage embryo transfers compared to single and double blastocysts stage embryo transfers in a single academic medical centre.@*MATERIALS AND METHODS@#This was a retrospective cohort study performed at the KK Women's and Children's Hospital In Vitro Fertilisation (KKIVF) Centre of all women who underwent fresh-cycle in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycles over a 5-year period. The outcome measures were CPR, LBR and MPR. The study included 5294 cycles, of which 539 patients underwent single embryo transfer (SET); 4533 patients underwent double embryo transfer (DET); 84 patients underwent double blastocyst embryo transfer (DBT); and 65 patients underwent single blastocyst embryo transfer (SBT).@*RESULTS@#The mean age of patients undergoing single blastocysts stage embryo transfer was lower than the other 2 groups. The DET, single and double blastocysts stage embryo transfer groups achieved similar LBR (33.9%, 38.7%, 35.4%, >0.05) and CPR (42.4%, 46.2%, 46.9%).@*CONCLUSION@#We found that single blastocysts stage embryo transfer is associated with similar LBR and CPR compared to double blastocysts stage embryo transfer and DET, with lower MPRs, and should be offered as standard practice, where possible.

Academy of Medicine-Ministry of Health Clinical Practice Guidelines: assessment and management of infertility at primary healthcare level

The Academy of Medicine (AMS) and Ministry of Health (MOH) have developed the clinical practice guidelines on Assessment and Management of Infertility at Primary Healthcare Level to provide doctors and patients in Singapore with evidence-based treatment for infertility. This article reproduces the introduction and executive summary (with recommendations from the guidelines) from the AMS-MOH clinical practice guidelines on Assessment and Management of Infertility at Primary Healthcare Level, for the information of SMJ readers. Chapters and page numbers mentioned in the reproduced extract refer to the full text of the guidelines, which are available from the Ministry of Health website: http://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/healthprofessionalsportal/doctors/guidelines/cpg_medical/2013/cpgmed_infertility.html. The recommendations should be used with reference to the full text of the guidelines. Following this article are multiple choice questions based on the full text of the guidelines.

Microsurgical reversal of sterilisation - is this still clinically relevant today?

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Women with previous tubal sterilisation seeking fertility are faced with treatment options of reconstructive tubal surgery or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) techniques. The aim was to assess the current viability of tubal anastomosis in a local clinical practice.</p><p><b>MATERIALS AND METHODS</b>A retrospective cohort review of all sterilisation reversal cases from January 1998 to January 2008. The main outcome measures included fi rst pregnancy success and live birth after surgery. Subsequent live births, ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, duration of surgery and hospitalisation within the study period were also reported. We included cases aged less than 40 years, without any known semen abnormalities, and performed by only one operator. Cases with only unilateral reversal were excluded.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Nineteen cases with previous Filshie clip ligation (9 laparoscopic/10 open) were reviewed. Cumulative pregnancy rates with surgery were 47.4% (<6 months), 57.9% (6 to 12 months), 68.4% (12 to 48 months) and 73.7% (>48 months). Pregnancy (77.8% vs 70.0%) and live birth rates (66.7% vs 60.0%) were similar between laparoscopy and open surgery. The mean interval to pregnancy was marginally lower via laparoscopy (11.3 vs 13.6 months). Hospitalisation stay was significantly halved (1.43 vs 3.00 days) but ectopic pregnancies were increased 3-fold (3 vs 1) with laparoscopy. Compared with IVF, the estimated average cost per delivery for laparoscopic reversal was reduced for laparoscopic reversal with no multiple pregnancies.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Our results favour surgical reversal after sterilisation for patients younger than 40 years old. It avoids hyperstimulation risks and the economic burdens associated with multiple pregnancies. Where expertise is available, laparoscopic reversal should be performed.</p>