Objective: To test the efficiency and overall acceptability of hysteroscopic GIFT when compared with laparoscopic GIFT.
Design: We performed a randomized comparison between these techniques as regards pregnancy rate (PR), implantation rate, miscarriage rate, and ectopic pregnancy rate (ectopic PR).
Setting: All patients were enrolled for GIFT procedures in our Reproductive Medicine Unit.
Patients: We enrolled 133 patients showing documented tubal patency at a previous diagnostic laparoscopy.
Interventions: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog and FSH were administered to induce superovulation in all patients, who were then randomized for hysteroscopic GIFT or laparoscopic GIFT. Laparoscopic GIFT was performed under general anesthesia while, during hysteroscopic GIFT, oocyte retrievals were transvaginal ultrasound guided and transfers were performed by cannulating tubal ostia after hysteroscopic visualization.
Main outcome measure: The efficacy was evaluated comparing PR, implantation rate, miscarriage rate, and ectopic PR.
Results: Pregnancy rate and implantation rate of hysteroscopic GIFT procedures (29.8% and 9%, respectively) are not significantly different from those obtained with laparoscopic GIFT (43.3% and 14%).
Conclusions: Hysteroscopic GIFT is safe and easy and quick to perform. Moreover, it does not require hospital admission, general anesthesia, or the operating theater, reducing costs and assuring advantages in terms of low psychophysical involvement and repeatability.