Intrauterine insemination versus fallopian tube sperm perfusion for non tubal infertility.

backgroundControlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) together with intrauterine insemination (IUI) is commonly offered to couples with infertility factors not involving the fallopian tubes. Intrauterine insemination gained its popularity because it is simple, non-invasive and cost-effective technique. Another simple non invasive method was introduced called fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP). This technique was developed to ensure the presence of higher sperm densities in the fallopian tubes at the time of ovulation than standard IUI provides. Fallopian tube sperm perfusion is based on pressure injection of 4 ml of sperm suspension with attempt of sealing of the cervix to prevent semen reflux. The IUI technique on the other hand is based on intrauterine injection of 0.5 ml of sperm suspension without flushing the tubes. A number of randomised controlled trials have been published comparing the efficacy of FSP with standard IUI. There were considerable variations in the results. The aim of this review was to determine whether outcomes differ between FSP and IUI in improving the probability of conception.

objectivesTo investigate whether outcomes differ between fallopian tube sperm perfusion and intrauterine insemination in the treatment of non tubal subfertility resulting in pregnancies and live births. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Menstrual Disorders & Subfertility Group trials register (24 March 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2003) and EMBASE (January 1988 to July 2003). Abstracts of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (1987 to 2003) and European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (1987 to 2003) meetings were searched with the same key- or text words. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled studies comparing fallopian tube sperm perfusion with intrauterine insemination were included in this review. The method of allocation was assessed to determine whether each study was truly randomised or pseudo-randomised. Only first period data of cross-over trials were included for analysis. Couples who have been trying to conceive for at least one year were included but only when the female partner had patent tubes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers (AC and MJ) selected the trials for inclusion based on the quality of the studies. MAIN

resultsOverall six studies involving 474 couples were included in the meta-analysis. Only one study assessed live birth rates (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.39 3.53). The results for pregnancy rate per couple were statistically significant with FSP showing higher pregnancy rates (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.79 using the odds ratio with the fixed effect model. To check the results the random effect model was used, which gave a wider confidence interval which crossed the line of no significance (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.05). As a result, these outcomes should be interpreted with caution. Subgroup analysis revealed that couples suffering from unexplained subfertility benefit from FSP over IUI, resulting in significantly higher pregnancy rates (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.73 to 4.78). Excluding studies which used the Foley catheter for tubal perfusion resulted in a significant difference favouring FSP for all indications (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.80). REVIEWERS'

conclusionsFSP may be more effective for non-tubal subfertility, but the significant heterogeneity should be taken into account. As a result no advice based on the meta-analysis could be given for the treatment of non-tubal subfertility. Subgroup analysis, which did not show evidence of statistical heterogeneity, suggested that couples with unexplained infertility may benefit from FSP over IUI in terms of higher pregnancy rates. FSP may therefore be advised in couples with unexplained subfertility. Results suggested the possibility of differential effectiveness of FSP depending on catheter choice.