Niederberger, C. et al. Forty years of IVF. Fertil. Steril. 110(2), 185-324e5 (2018).
Steptoe, P. C., Edwards, R. G. & Walters, D. E. Observations on 767 clinical pregnancies and 500 births after human in-vitro fertilization. Hum. Reprod. 1(2), 89–94 (1986).
Toth, T. L., Lee, M. S., Bendikson, K. A. & Reindollar, R. H. American Society for Reproductive Medicine Embryo Transfer Advisory P. Embryo transfer techniques: An American Society for Reproductive Medicine survey of current Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology practices. Fertil. Steril. 107(4), 1003–1011 (2017).
European IVFmCddftESoHR, Embryology, Wyns, C., Bergh, C., Calhaz-Jorge, C., De Geyter, C. et al. ART in Europe, 2016: Results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum. Reprod. Open. 2020(3), hoaa032 (2020).
Simon, A. & Laufer, N. Assessment and treatment of repeated implantation failure (RIF). J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 29(11), 1227–1239 (2012).
Mansour, R. T. & Aboulghar, M. A. Optimizing the embryo transfer technique. Hum. Reprod. 17(5), 1149–1153 (2002).
Woolcott, R. & Stanger, J. Potentially important variables identified by transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer. Hum. Reprod. 12(5), 963–966 (1997).
Brown, J., Buckingham, K. & Abou-Setta, A. M. Ultrasound versus “clinical touch” for catheter guidance during embryo transfer in women. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 1, CD006107 (2010).
Fanchin, R. et al. Uterine contractions at the time of embryo transfer alter pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum. Reprod. 13(7), 1968–1974 (1998).
Zhu, L., Che, H. S., Xiao, L. & Li, Y. P. Uterine peristalsis before embryo transfer affects the chance of clinical pregnancy in fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Hum. Reprod. 29(6), 1238–1243 (2014).
Chung, C. H. et al. The changing pattern of uterine contractions before and after fresh embryo transfer and its relation to clinical outcome. Reprod. Biomed Online 34(3), 240–247 (2017).
Brown, J., Buckingham, K. & Buckett, W. Ultrasound versus “clinical touch” for catheter guidance during embryo transfer in women. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 3, CD006107 (2016).
Tobler, K. J. et al. Worldwide survey of IVF practices: Trigger, retrieval and embryo transfer techniques. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 290(3), 561–568 (2014).
Drakeley, A. J. et al. A randomized controlled clinical trial of 2295 ultrasound-guided embryo transfers. Hum. Reprod. 23(5), 1101–1106 (2008).
Baba, K. et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in embryo transfer. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 16(4), 372–373 (2000).
Gergely, R. Z. et al. Three dimensional/four dimensional ultrasound-guided embryo transfer using the maximal implantation potential point. Fertil. Steril. 84(2), 500–503 (2005).
Gergely, R. OC17.03: 3D/4D ultrasound-guided embryo transfer using the maximal implantation potential (MIP) point. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 34(S1), 33 (2009).
Coyne, L., Jayaprakasan, K. & Raine-Fenning, N. 3D ultrasound in gynecology and reproductive medicine. Womens Health (Lond). 4(5), 501–516 (2008).
HFEA. Fertility Treatment 2019: Trends and Figures. (HFEA, 2021).
Nancarrow, L. et al. National survey highlights the urgent need for standardisation of embryo transfer techniques in the UK. J. Clin. Med. 10(13), 11 (2021).
Saravelos, S. H. & Li, T.-C. Embryo transfer techniques. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 59, 77–88 (2019).
Penzias, A. et al. Performing the embryo transfer: A guideline. Fertil. Steril. 107(4), 882–896 (2017).
Steiner, N., Ates, S., Shaulov, T., Tannus, S. & Dahan, M. H. Effect of uterine dimensions on live birth rates after single embryo transfer in infertile women. Reprod. Biomed. Online 41(4), 663–670 (2020).
Williams, C. D., Kaelberer, D. F., Pastore, L. M. & Bateman, B. G. Uterine cavity changes in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: Implications for transcervical embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril. 82, S135-S (2004).
Chun, S. S., Chung, M. J., Chong, G. O., Park, K. S. & Lee, T. H. Relationship between the length of the uterine cavity and clinical pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil. Steril. 93(2), 663–665 (2010).
Fang, L., Sun, Y., Su, Y. & Guo, Y. Advantages of 3-dimensional sonography in embryo transfer. J. Ultrasound Med. 28(5), 573–578 (2009).
Letterie, G. S. Three-dimensional ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: A preliminary study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 192(6), 1983–1987 (2005) (discussion 7–8).
Saravelos, S. H. et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial of 3D versus 2D ultrasound-guided embryo transfer in women undergoing ART treatment. Hum. Reprod. 31(10), 2255–2260 (2016).
Bhattacharyya, J., Singh, S., Das, M. C. & Jayaprakasan, K. Embryo transfer: Techniques and troubleshooting. In In Vitro Fertilization: A Textbook of Current and Emerging Methods and Devices (eds Nagy, Z. P. et al.) 735–749 (Springer, 2019).
Gergely, R. 15 3D/4D ultrasound-guided embryo transfer targeting maximal implantation potential (MIP) point increases pregnancy rate, reduces complications. Reprod. BioMed. Online 20, S7 (2010).
Conto, E. et al. A prospective study comparing two embryo-transfer soft catheters. JBRA Assist. Reprod. 21(2), 70–72 (2017).
El-Shawarby, S. A. et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial of Wallace and Rocket embryo transfer catheters. Reprod. Biomed. Online 17(4), 549–552 (2008).
Ata, B., Isiklar, A., Balaban, B. & Urman, B. Prospective randomized comparison of Wallace and Labotect embryo transfer catheters. Reprod. Biomed. Online 14(4), 471–476 (2007).
Boone, W. R., Johnson, J. E., Blackhurst, D. M. & Crane, M. M. T. Cook versus Edwards-Wallace: Are there differences in flexible catheters?. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 18(1), 15–17 (2001).
Buckett, W. M. A review and meta-analysis of prospective trials comparing different catheters used for embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril. 85(3), 728–734 (2006).
Liu, S., Shi, L. & Shi, J. Impact of endometrial cavity fluid on assisted reproductive technology outcomes. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 132(3), 278–283 (2016).
Ozmen, B., Diedrich, K. & Al-Hasani, S. Hydrosalpinx and IVF: Assessment of treatments implemented prior to IVF. Reprod. Biomed. Online 14(2), 235–241 (2007).
Mansour, R. T., Aboulghar, M. A., Serour, G. I. & Riad, R. Fluid accumulation of the uterine cavity before embryo transfer: A possible hindrance for implantation. J. In Vitro Fert. Embryo Transf. 8(3), 157–159 (1991).
Makker, A. & Goel, M. M. Uterine leiomyomas: Effects on architectural, cellular, and molecular determinants of endometrial receptivity. Reprod. Sci. 20(6), 631–638 (2013).
Lavergne, N., Aristizabal, J., Zarka, V., Erny, R. & Hedon, B. Uterine anomalies and in vitro fertilization: What are the results?. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 68(1–2), 29–34 (1996).
Asgari, Z., Hafizi, L., Hosseini, R., Javaheri, A. & Rastad, H. Intrauterine synechiae after myomectomy; Laparotomy versus laparoscopy: Non-randomized interventional trial. Iran J. Reprod. Med. 13(3), 161–168 (2015).
Fox, C., Morin, S., Jeong, J. W., Scott, R. T. Jr. & Lessey, B. A. Local and systemic factors and implantation: What is the evidence?. Fertil. Steril. 105(4), 873–884 (2016).
Tobias, T., Sharara, F. I., Franasiak, J. M., Heiser, P. W. & Pinckney-Clark, E. Promoting the use of elective single embryo transfer in clinical practice. Fertil. Res. Pract. 2, 1 (2016).
Envelope S. Create a Blocked Randomisation List: Sealed Envelope Ltd. https://www.sealedenvelope.com/simple-randomiser/v1/lists (2016).