Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2014; 32(04): 306-312
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1375183
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Indications of Intrauterine Insemination for Male and Non–Male Factor Infertility

Yong Jin Kim
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Guro Hospital, Korea University, Seoul, Korea
,
Chan Woo Park
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Kwandong University, College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Seung-Yup Ku
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea, Korea
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
11 June 2014 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a widely used fertility treatment for couples with male and/or non–male factor infertility and is a relatively simple and inexpensive procedure. When used for unexplained infertility, IUI combined with ovarian stimulation increases the pregnancy rates, but evidence does not support this to be true when applied for male factor infertility. Recently, the revised World Health Organization laboratory manual for semen criteria provided a new insight for practical guidelines. Further randomized, controlled studies are necessary to develop standardized IUI strategies. The authors reviewed, via literature search, on the indications, prognostic factors, ovarian stimulation protocols, and methods that have been employed for IUI treatment.

Keywords

IUI - male factor - non–male factor IUI
 

  • References

  • 1 Kerin JF, Kirby C, Peek J , et al. Improved conception rate after intrauterine insemination of washed spermatozoa from men with poor quality semen. Lancet 1984; 1 (8376) 533-535
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Veltman-Verhulst SM, Cohlen BJ, Hughes E, Heineman MJ. Intra-uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 9: CD001838
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Pandian Z, Gibreel A, Bhattacharya S. In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 4: CD003357
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Matorras R, Osuna C, Exposito A, Crisol L, Pijoan JI. Recombinant FSH versus highly purified FSH in intrauterine insemination: systematic review and metaanalysis. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (6) 1937-1942 , e1–e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cantineau AE, Janssen MJ, Cohlen BJ. Synchronised approach for intrauterine insemination in subfertile couples. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (4) CD006942
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 De Jonge C. Semen analysis: looking for an upgrade in class. Fertil Steril 2012; 97 (2) 260-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Menkveld R, Stander FS, Kotze TJ, Kruger TF, van Zyl JA. The evaluation of morphological characteristics of human spermatozoa according to stricter criteria. Hum Reprod 1990; 5 (5) 586-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Eliasson R. Semen analysis with regard to sperm number, sperm morphology and functional aspects. Asian J Androl 2010; 12 (1) 26-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Menkveld R, Wong WY, Lombard CJ , et al. Semen parameters, including WHO and strict criteria morphology, in a fertile and subfertile population: an effort towards standardization of in-vivo thresholds. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (6) 1165-1171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Menkveld R. Clinical significance of the low normal sperm morphology value as proposed in the fifth edition of the WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen. Asian J Androl 2010; 12 (1) 47-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Safe S. Clinical correlates of environmental endocrine disruptors. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2005; 16 (4) 139-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Swan SH, Elkin EP, Fenster L. The question of declining sperm density revisited: an analysis of 101 studies published 1934-1996. Environ Health Perspect 2000; 108 (10) 961-966
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Menkveld R, Holleboom CA, Rhemrev JP. Measurement and significance of sperm morphology. Asian J Androl 2011; 13 (1) 59-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Murray KS, James A, McGeady JB, Reed ML, Kuang WW, Nangia AK. The effect of the new 2010 World Health Organization criteria for semen analyses on male infertility. Fertil Steril 2012; 98 (6) 1428-1431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Haidl G. New WHO-reference limits-revolution or storm in a teapot?. Asian J Androl 2011; 13 (2) 208-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Intrauterine insemination. Hum Reprod Update 2009; 15 (3) 265-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Akanji Tijani H, Bhattacharya S. The role of intrauterine insemination in male infertility. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2010; 13 (4) 226-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bhattacharya S, Harrild K, Mollison J , et al. Clomifene citrate or unstimulated intrauterine insemination compared with expectant management for unexplained infertility: pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2008; 337: a716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Wordsworth S, Buchanan J, Mollison J , et al. Clomifene citrate and intrauterine insemination as first-line treatments for unexplained infertility: are they cost-effective?. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (2) 369-375
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Chung CC, Fleming R, Jamieson ME, Yates RW, Coutts JR. Randomized comparison of ovulation induction with and without intrauterine insemination in the treatment of unexplained infertility. Hum Reprod 1995; 10 (12) 3139-3141
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Singh M, Goldberg J, Falcone T , et al. Superovulation and intrauterine insemination in cases of treated mild pelvic disease. J Assist Reprod Genet 2001; 18 (1) 26-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Steures P, van der Steeg JW, Mol BW , et al; CECERM (Collaborative Effort in Clinical Evaluation in Reproductive Medicine). Prediction of an ongoing pregnancy after intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 2004; 82 (1) 45-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ahinko-Hakamaa K, Huhtala H, Tinkanen H. Success in intrauterine insemination: the role of etiology. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007; 86 (7) 855-860
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Fedele L, Bianchi S, Marchini M, Villa L, Brioschi D, Parazzini F. Superovulation with human menopausal gonadotropins in the treatment of infertility associated with minimal or mild endometriosis: a controlled randomized study. Fertil Steril 1992; 58 (1) 28-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Tummon IS, Asher LJ, Martin JS, Tulandi T. Randomized controlled trial of superovulation and insemination for infertility associated with minimal or mild endometriosis. Fertil Steril 1997; 68 (1) 8-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Koch J, Rowan K, Rombauts L, Yazdani A, Chapman M, Johnson N. Endometriosis and infertility—a consensus statement from ACCEPT (Australasian CREI Consensus Expert Panel on Trial evidence). Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2012; 52 (6) 513-522
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Miskry T, Chapman M. The use of intrauterine insemination in Australia and New Zealand. Hum Reprod 2002; 17 (4) 956-959
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Freour T, Jean M, Mirallie S, Langlois ML, Dubourdieu S, Barriere P. Predictive value of CASA parameters in IUI with frozen donor sperm. Int J Androl 2009; 32 (5) 498-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wiser A, Shalom-Paz E, Reinblatt SL , et al. Ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination in women aged 40 years or more. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 24 (2) 170-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Demir B, Dilbaz B, Cinar O , et al. Factors affecting pregnancy outcome of intrauterine insemination cycles in couples with favourable female characteristics. J Obstet Gynaecol 2011; 31 (5) 420-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Campana A, Sakkas D, Stalberg A , et al. Intrauterine insemination: evaluation of the results according to the woman's age, sperm quality, total sperm count per insemination and life table analysis. Hum Reprod 1996; 11 (4) 732-736
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Sun Y, Li B, Fan LQ , et al. Does sperm morphology affect the outcome of intrauterine insemination in patients with normal sperm concentration and motility?. Andrologia 2012; 44 (5) 299-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 van Weert JM, Repping S, Van Voorhis BJ, van der Veen F, Bossuyt PM, Mol BW. Performance of the postwash total motile sperm count as a predictor of pregnancy at the time of intrauterine insemination: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2004; 82 (3) 612-620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 van Weert JM, Repping S, van der Steeg JW, Steures P, van der Veen F, Mol BW. IUI in male subfertility: are we able to select the proper patients?. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 11 (5) 624-631
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Dorjpurev U, Kuwahara A, Yano Y , et al. Effect of semen characteristics on pregnancy rate following intrauterine insemination. J Med Invest 2011; 58 (1–2) 127-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Dong Fl, Sun Yp, Su Yc, Guo Yh, Hu Ll, Wang F. Relationship between processed total motile sperm count of husband or donor semen and pregnancy outcome following intrauterine insemination. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2011; 57 (5) 251-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Merviel P, Heraud MH, Grenier N, Lourdel E, Sanguinet P, Copin H. Predictive factors for pregnancy after intrauterine insemination (IUI): an analysis of 1038 cycles and a review of the literature. Fertil Steril 2010; 93 (1) 79-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Badawy A, Elnashar A, Eltotongy M. Effect of sperm morphology and number on success of intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 2009; 91 (3) 777-781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Berker B, Şükür YE, Kahraman K , et al. Absence of rapid and linear progressive motile spermatozoa “grade A” in semen specimens: does it change intrauterine insemination outcomes?. Urology 2012; 80 (6) 1262-1266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Youn JS, Cha SH, Park CW , et al. Predictive value of sperm motility characteristics assessed by computer-assisted sperm analysis in intrauterine insemination with superovulation in couples with unexplained infertility. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2011; 38 (1) 47-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Boomsma CM, Heineman MJ, Cohlen BJ, Farquhar C. Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (4) CD004507
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Kamath MS, Bhave P, Aleyamma T , et al. Predictive factors for pregnancy after intrauterine insemination: a prospective study of factors affecting outcome. J Hum Reprod Sci 2010; 3 (3) 129-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Erdem A, Erdem M, Atmaca S, Korucuoglu U, Karabacak O. Factors affecting live birth rate in intrauterine insemination cycles with recombinant gonadotrophin stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17 (2) 199-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Zadehmodarres S, Oladi B, Saeedi S, Jahed F, Ashraf H. Intrauterine insemination with husband semen: an evaluation of pregnancy rate and factors affecting outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet 2009; 26 (1) 7-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Li HW, Yeung WS, Lau EY, Ho PC, Ng EH. Evaluating the performance of serum antimullerian hormone concentration in predicting the live birth rate of controlled ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (6) 2177-2181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 van Rumste MM, Custers IM, van der Veen F, van Wely M, Evers JL, Mol BW. The influence of the number of follicles on pregnancy rates in intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2008; 14 (6) 563-570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Guven S, Gunalp GS, Tekin Y. Factors influencing pregnancy rates in intrauterine insemination cycles. J Reprod Med 2008; 53 (4) 257-265
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Al-Inany H, Azab H, El-Khayat W, Nada A, El-Khattan E, Abou-Setta AM. The effectiveness of clomiphene citrate in LH surge suppression in women undergoing IUI: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (6) 2167-2171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Khanna SC, Kumar A, Joy SG, Tanwar R, Sharma S, Prasad S. Is letrozole superior to clomiphene for ovarian stimulation prior to intrauterine insemination?. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013; 287 (3) 571-575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Bedaiwy MA, Abdelaleem MA, Hussein M, Mousa N, Brunengraber LN, Casper RF. Hormonal, follicular and endometrial dynamics in letrozole-treated versus natural cycles in patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2011; 9: 83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Badawy A, Elnashar A, Totongy M. Clomiphene citrate or aromatase inhibitors combined with gonadotropins for superovulation in women undergoing intrauterine insemination: a prospective randomised trial. J Obstet Gynaecol 2010; 30 (6) 617-621
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Ganesh A, Goswami SK, Chattopadhyay R, Chaudhury K, Chakravarty B. Comparison of letrozole with continuous gonadotropins and clomiphene-gonadotropin combination for ovulation induction in 1387 PCOS women after clomiphene citrate failure: a randomized prospective clinical trial. J Assist Reprod Genet 2009; 26 (1) 19-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Rashidi M, Aaleyasin A, Aghahosseini M, Loloi S, Kokab A, Najmi Z. Advantages of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone over human menopausal gonadotropin for ovarian stimulation in intrauterine insemination: a randomized clinical trial in unexplained infertility. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 169 (2) 244-247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Kocak M, Dilbaz B, Demir B , et al. Lyophilised hMG versus rFSH in women with unexplained infertility undergoing a controlled ovarian stimulation with intrauterine insemination: a prospective, randomised study. Gynecol Endocrinol 2010; 26 (6) 429-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Cunha-Filho JS, Kadoch J, Righini C, Fanchin R, Frydman R, Olivennes F. Premature LH and progesterone rise in intrauterine insemination cycles: analysis of related factors. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 7 (2) 194-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Lee TH, Lin YH, Seow KM, Hwang JL, Tzeng CR, Yang YS. Effectiveness of cetrorelix for the prevention of premature luteinizing hormone surge during controlled ovarian stimulation using letrozole and gonadotropins: a randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2008; 90 (1) 113-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Allegra A, Marino A, Coffaro F , et al. GnRH antagonist-induced inhibition of the premature LH surge increases pregnancy rates in IUI-stimulated cycles. A prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (1) 101-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Lambalk CB, Leader A, Olivennes F , et al. Treatment with the GnRH antagonist ganirelix prevents premature LH rises and luteinization in stimulated intrauterine insemination: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Hum Reprod 2006; 21 (3) 632-639
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Bakas P, Konidaris S, Liapis A, Gregoriou O, Tzanakaki D, Creatsas G. Role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in the management of subfertile couples with intrauterine insemination and controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (6) 2024-2028
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Gómez-Palomares JL, Juliá B, Acevedo-Martín B, Martínez-Burgos M, Hernández ER, Ricciarelli E. Timing ovulation for intrauterine insemination with a GnRH antagonist. Hum Reprod 2005; 20 (2) 368-372
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Williams RS, Hillard JB, De Vane G , et al. A randomized, multicenter study comparing the efficacy of recombinant FSH vs recombinant FSH with Ganirelix during superovulation/IUI therapy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191 (2) 648-651 , discussion 651–653
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Steward RG, Gill I, Williams DB, Witz CA, Griffith J, Haddad GF. Cetrorelix lowers premature luteinization rate in gonadotropin ovulation induction-intrauterine insemination cycles: a randomized-controlled clinical trial. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (1) 434-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Cantineau AE, Cohlen BJ, Klip H, Heineman MJ ; Dutch IUI Study Group Collaborators. The addition of GnRH antagonists in intrauterine insemination cycles with mild ovarian hyperstimulation does not increase live birth rates—a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (5) 1104-1111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Kamath MS, R R, Bhave P, K M, T K A, George K. Effectiveness of GnRH antagonist in intrauterine insemination cycles. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 166 (2) 168-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Kosmas IP, Tatsioni A, Kolibianakis EM , et al. Effects and clinical significance of GnRH antagonist administration for IUI timing in FSH superovulated cycles: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2008; 90 (2) 367-372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Matorras R, Soler AV, Ramon O , et al. Prognostic value of serum progesterone and LH values on the day of hCG administration in IUI GnRH antagonist cycles. Gynecol Endocrinol 2012; 28 (3) 157-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Chavkin DE, Molinaro TA, Roe AH, Sammel MD, Dokras A. Donor sperm insemination cycles: are two inseminations better than one?. J Androl 2012; 33 (3) 375-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Rahman SM, Malhotra N, Kumar S, Roy KK, Agarwal A. A randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of single versus double intrauterine insemination in unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (7) 2913-2915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Bagis T, Haydardedeoglu B, Kilicdag EB, Cok T, Simsek E, Parlakgumus AH. Single versus double intrauterine insemination in multi-follicular ovarian hyperstimulation cycles: a randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (7) 1684-1690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Tonguc E, Var T, Onalan G , et al. Comparison of the effectiveness of single versus double intrauterine insemination with three different timing regimens. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (4) 1267-1270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Polyzos NP, Tzioras S, Mauri D, Tatsioni A. Double versus single intrauterine insemination for unexplained infertility: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (4) 1261-1266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Ghanem ME, Bakre NI, Emam MA , et al. The effects of timing of intrauterine insemination in relation to ovulation and the number of inseminations on cycle pregnancy rate in common infertility etiologies. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (3) 576-583
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Rahman SM, Karmakar D, Malhotra N, Kumar S. Timing of intrauterine insemination: an attempt to unravel the enigma. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011; 284 (4) 1023-1027
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Miller PB, Acres ML, Proctor JG, Higdon III HL, Boone WR. Flexible versus rigid intrauterine insemination catheters: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril 2005; 83 (5) 1544-1546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Park KE, Ku SY, Kim H , et al. The use of tenaculum during intrauterine insemination may not affect the pregnancy outcome. Yonsei Med J 2010; 51 (6) 949-953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Balci O, Acar A, Colakoglu MC. Does tenaculum application to the cervix during intrauterine insemination affect pregnancy rates?. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009; 88 (9) 1053-1056
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Kyrou D, Fatemi HM, Tournaye H, Devroey P. Luteal phase support in normo-ovulatory women stimulated with clomiphene citrate for intrauterine insemination: need or habit?. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (10) 2501-2506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Erdem A, Erdem M, Atmaca S, Guler I. Impact of luteal phase support on pregnancy rates in intrauterine insemination cycles: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 2009; 91 (6) 2508-2513
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Custers IM, König TE, Broekmans FJ , et al. Couples with unexplained subfertility and unfavorable prognosis: a randomized pilot trial comparing the effectiveness of in vitro fertilization with elective single embryo transfer versus intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (5) 1107-1111 , e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Check JH, Lurie D, Peymer M, Katsoff D, Long R. Efficacy of intrauterine insemination without ovarian hyperstimulation for male or cervical factor in women aged 40 or over. Arch Androl 2000; 44 (3) 193-196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Armstrong S, Akande V. What is the best treatment option for infertile women aged 40 and over?. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013; 30 (5) 667-671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Custers IM, van Rumste MM, van der Steeg JW , et al; CECERM. Long-term outcome in couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis initially randomized between expectant management and immediate treatment. Hum Reprod 2012; 27 (2) 444-450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 De Brucker M, Camus M, Haentjens P, Verheyen G, Collins J, Tournaye H. Assisted reproduction using donor spermatozoa in women aged 40 and above: the high road or the low road?. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26 (6) 577-585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Freour T, Dubourdieu S, Mirallie S, Langlois ML, Jean M, Barrière P. IVF conversion to IUI in poor responders: an observational study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2010; 282 (4) 445-449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Nicopoullos JD, Abdalla H. Poor response cycles: when should we cancel? Comparison of outcome between egg collection, intrauterine insemination conversion, and follow-up cycles after abandonment. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (1) 68-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Norian JM, Levens ED, Richter KS, Widra EA, Levy MJ. Conversion from assisted reproductive technology to intrauterine insemination in low responders: is it advantageous?. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (6) 2073-2077
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar