Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Apr 26;4(4):CD004634.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004634.pub3.

Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques

Ektoras X Georgiou  1 , Pedro Melo, Julie Brown, Ingrid E Granne
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques

Ektoras X Georgiou et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Update in

Abstract

Background: Follicular aspiration under transvaginal ultrasound guidance is routinely performed as part of assisted reproductive technology (ART) to retrieve oocytes for in vitro fertilisation (IVF). However, controversy as to whether follicular flushing following aspiration yields a larger number of oocytes and hence is associated with greater potential for pregnancy than aspiration only is ongoing.

Objectives: To assess the safety and efficacy of follicular flushing as compared with aspiration only performed in women undergoing ART.

Search methods: We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 July 2017: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the CENTRAL Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched the trial registries ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify ongoing and registered trials up to 4 July 2017. We reviewed the reference lists of reviews and retrieved studies to identify further potentially relevant studies.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared follicular aspiration and flushing with aspiration alone in women undergoing ART using their own gametes. Primary outcomes were live birth rate and miscarriage rate per woman randomised.

Data collection and analysis: Two independent review authors assessed studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A third review author was consulted if required. We contacted study authors as required. We analysed dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and a fixed-effect model, and we analysed continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) between groups presented with 95% CIs. We examined the heterogeneity of studies via the I2 statistic. We assessed the quality of evidence by using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.

Main results: We included ten studies, with a total of 928 women. All included studies reported outcomes per woman randomised. We assessed no studies as being at low risk of bias across all domains and found that the main limitation was lack of blinding. Using the GRADE method, we determined that the quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low, and we identified issues arising from risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency.Comparing follicular flushing to aspiration alone revealed probably little or no difference in the live birth rate (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; three RCTs; n = 303; I2 = 30%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that with a live birth rate of approximately 41% with aspiration alone, the equivalent live birth rate with follicular flushing is likely to lie between 29% and 52%. None of the included studies reported on the primary outcome of miscarriage rate.Data show probably little or no difference in oocyte yield (MD -0.28 oocytes, 95% CI -0.64 to 0.09; six RCTs; n = 708; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Very low-quality evidence suggests that the duration of oocyte retrieval was longer in the follicular flushing group than in the aspiration only group (MD 166.01 seconds, 95% CI 141.96 to 190.06; six RCTs; n = 714; I2 = 88%). We found no evidence of a difference in the total number of embryos per woman randomised (MD -0.10 embryos, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.15; two RCTs; n = 160; I2 = 58%; low-quality evidence) and no evidence of a difference in the number of embryos cryopreserved (meta-analysis not possible). Data show probably little or no difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.46; five RCTs; n = 704; I2 = 49%; moderate-quality evidence). Only two studies reported on adverse outcomes: One reported no differences in patient-reported adverse outcomes (depression, anxiety, and stress), and the other reported no differences in needle blockage, vomiting, and hypotension. No studies reported on safety.

Authors' conclusions: This review suggests that follicular flushing probably has little or no effect on live birth rates compared with aspiration alone. None of the included trials reported on effects of follicular aspiration and flushing on the miscarriage rate. Data suggest little or no difference between follicular flushing and aspiration alone with respect to oocyte yield, total embryo number, or number of cryopreserved embryos. In addition, follicular flushing probably makes little or no difference in the clinical pregnancy rate. Evidence was insufficient to allow any firm conclusions with respect to adverse events or safety.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None known.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Follicular flushing, outcome: 1.1 Live birth rate.
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Follicular flushing, outcome: 1.2 Oocyte yield per woman randomised (normally distributed data).
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Follicular flushing, outcome: 1.4 Duration of oocyte retrieval (normally distributed data; seconds).
7
7
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Follicular flushing, outcome: 1.8 Clinical pregnancy rate per woman randomised.
8
8
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Follicular flushing, outcome: 1.9 Ongoing pregnancy rate per woman randomised.
9
9
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Follicular flushing, outcome: 1.10 Adverse events (continuous data).
10
10
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Follicular flushing, outcome: 1.11 Adverse events (dichotomous data).
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Follicular flushing, Outcome 1 Live birth rate.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Follicular flushing, Outcome 2 Oocyte yield per woman randomised (normally distributed data).
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Follicular flushing, Outcome 4 Duration of oocyte retrieval (normally distributed data; seconds).
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Follicular flushing, Outcome 6 Total number of embryos.
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Follicular flushing, Outcome 7 Number of embryos cryopreserved per woman randomised.
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Follicular flushing, Outcome 8 Clinical pregnancy rate per woman randomised.
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Follicular flushing, Outcome 9 Ongoing pregnancy rate per woman randomised.
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Follicular flushing, Outcome 10 Adverse events (continuous data).
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Follicular flushing, Outcome 11 Adverse events (dichotomous data).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Haines 1989 {published data only}
    1. Haines CJ, Emes AL, O'Shea RT, Weiss TJ. Choice of needle for ovum pickup. Journal of In Vitro Fertilisation and Embryo Transfer 1989;6(2):111‐2. - PubMed
Haydardedeoglu 2011 {published data only}
    1. Haydardedeoglu B, Cok T, Kilicdag EB, Parlakgumus AH, Simsek E, Bagis T. In vitro fertilization‐intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes in single‐ versus double‐lumen oocyte retrieval needles in normally responding patients: a randomized trial. Fertility and Sterility 2011;95(2):812‐4. - PubMed
Haydardedeoglu 2017 {published data only}
    1. Haydardedeoglu B, Gjemalaj F, Aytac PC, Kilicdag EB. Direct aspiration versus follicular flushing in poor responders undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2017;124(8):1190‐6. - PubMed
Kara 2012 {published data only}
    1. Kara M, Aydin T, Turktekin N. Is follicular flushing really effective? A clinical study. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2012;286(4):1061‐4. - PubMed
Kingsland 1991 {published data only}
    1. Kingsland CR, Taylor CT, Aziz N, Bickerton N. Is follicular flushing necessary for oocyte retrieval? A randomized trial. Human Reproduction 1991;6(3):382‐3. - PubMed
Levens 2009 {published data only}
    1. Levens ED, Whitcomb BW, Payson MD, Larsen FW. Ovarian follicular flushing among low‐responding patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology. Fertility and Sterility 2009;91 Suppl(4):1381‐4. - PMC - PubMed
Mok‐Lin 2013 {published data only}
    1. Mok‐Lin E, Brauer AA, Schattman G, Zaninovic N, Rosenwaks Z, Spandorfer S. Follicular flushing and in vitro fertilization outcomes in the poorest responders: a randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2013;28(11):2990‐5. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det350] - DOI - PubMed
Scott 1989 {published data only}
    1. Scott RT, Hofmann GE, Muasher SJ, Acosta AA, Kreiner DK, Rosenwaks Z. A prospective randomized comparison of single‐ and double‐lumen needles for transvaginal follicular aspiration. Journal of In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer 1989;6(2):98‐100. - PubMed
Tan 1992 {published data only}
    1. Tan SL, Waterstone J, Wren M, Parsons J. A prospective randomized study comparing aspiration only with aspiration and flushing for transvaginal ultrasound‐directed oocyte recovery. Fertility and Sterility 1992;58(2):356‐60. - PubMed
von Horn 2017 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Horn K, Depenbusch M, Schultze‐Mosgau A, Griesinger G. Randomized, open trial comparing a modified double‐lumen needle follicular flushing system with a single‐lumen aspiration needle in IVF patients with poor ovarian response. Human Reproduction 2017;32(4):832‐5. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Avila 2013 {published data only}
    1. Avila A, Diaz‐Spndola P, Santos‐Haliscak R, Obeso‐Montoya I, Davila‐Garza A, Garcia‐Villafaña G. Follicle flushing does not improve reproductive outcomes in art program. Fertility and Sterility 2013;100(3 Suppl):S499–S500.
Aydin 2017 {published data only}
    1. Aydin A, Taplamaciogly F, Gokce F. What is the effect of follicle flushing on oocyte yield and quality in ART cycles of poor responders?. Human Reproduction Abstract Book of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the ESHRE, Switzerland 2017;32:i246‐7.
Bagtharia 2005 {published data only}
    1. Bagtharia S, Haloob ARK. Is there a benefit from routine follicular flushing for oocyte retrieval?. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2005;25(4):374‐6. - PubMed
Biljan 1997 {published data only}
    1. Biljan MM, Dean N, Hemmings R, Bissonnette F, Tan SL. Prospective randomized trial of the effect of two flushing media on oocyte collection and fertilization rates after in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 1997;68(6):1132‐4. - PubMed
Dean 1997 {published data only}
    1. Dean N, Biljan MM, Hemmings R, Bissonette F, Tan SL. Prospective randomized trial on effects of different flushing media on collection and fertilization rates in IVF procedures. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 1992;19:22 (Abstract No. 44).
el Hussein 1992 {published data only}
    1. Hussein E, Balen AH, Tan SL. A prospective study comparing the outcome of oocytes retrieved in the aspirate with those retrieved in the flush during transvaginal ultrasound directed oocyte recovery for in‐vitro fertilization. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1992;99(10):841‐4. - PubMed
Faller 2010 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Faller E, Pirrello O, Wittemer C, Ohl J. Follicular flushing with double‐lumen needle among low responder patients: preliminary study of 79 cases. Human Reproduction, Abstract Book of the 26th Annual Meeting of the ESHRE, Rome 2010;25 Suppl 1:i153.
Ghosh 2002 {published data only}
    1. Ghosh S, Chatterjee R, Goswami S, Chakraborty BN. Follicular flushing at OCR ‐ should we do away with it?. Human Reproduction Abstract Book of the 18th Annual Meeting of the ESHRE, Vienna, July 1‐3, 2002. 2002;17 Suppl 1(Abstract O‐145):51.
Gordon 2002 {published data only}
    1. Gordon AC, Gadd SC, Kendrew H, Spearman P, Williams C, Walker D, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of two commercially prepared flushing media for IVF/ICSI. Human Reproduction, Abstract Book of the 18th Annual Meeting of the ESHRE, Vienna, July 1‐3, 2002. 2002;17 Suppl 1(Abstract P‐4810):163.
Khalifa 1999 {published data only}
    1. Khalifa EAM, Buraidah KFSH. Routine use of normal saline as flushing media has no impact on fertilization, embryo development and pregnancy rates in assisted reproductive technologies. Fertility and Sterility 1999;72 Suppl 1:193‐4.
Knight 2001 {published data only}
    1. Knight DC, Tyler JP, Driscoll GL. Follicular flushing at oocyte retrieval: a reappraisal. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2001;41(2):210‐3. - PubMed
Lenz 1987 {published data only}
    1. Lenz S, Lindenberg S, Fehilly C, Petersen K. Are ultrasonic‐guided follicular aspiration and flushing safe for the oocyte?. Journal of In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer 1987;4(3):159‐61. - PubMed
Mehri 2014 {published data only}
    1. Mehri S, Levi Setti PE, Greco K, Sakkas D, Martinez G, Patrizio P. Correlation between follicular diameters and flushing versus no flushing on oocyte maturity, fertilization rate and embryo quality. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2014;31(1):73‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Mendez Lozano 2008 {published data only}
    1. Mendez Lozano DH, Scheffer JB, Frydman N, Fay S, Fanchin R, Frydman R. Optimal reproductive competence of oocytes retrieved through follicular flushing in minimal stimulation IVF. RBM Online 2008;16(1):119‐23. - PubMed
Neyens 2016 {published data only}
    1. Neyens S, Neubourg D, Peeraer K, Jaegher N, Spiessens C, Debrock S, et al. Is there a correlation between the number of follicular flushings, oocyte/embryo quality and pregnancy rate in assisted reproductive technology cycles? Results from a prospective study. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 2016;81(1):34‐40. - PubMed
Pirrello 2011 {published data only}
    1. Pirrello O, Faller E, Catherine R, Jeanine O, Laurence M, Brigitte F, et al. Follicular flushing with double lumen needle among low responder patients: a preliminary study. Human Fertility (Abstract of the 7th Biennial Conference of the UK Fertility Societies: The Association of Clinical Embryologists, British Fertility Society and the Society for Reproduction and Fertility. Also Participating: Irish Clinical Embryologists Association, ICE and the Irish Fertility Society 2011;14(2):143. - PubMed
Waterstone 1992 {published data only}
    1. Waterstone JJ, Parsons JH. A prospective study to investigate the value of flushing follicles during transvaginal ultrasound‐directed follicle aspiration. Fertility and Sterility 1992;57(1):221‐3. - PubMed
Ziebe 2000 {published data only}
    1. Ziebe S, Sunde A, Erb K. Evaluation of a new fully synthetic flushing medium in a prospective randomised multi‐centre study. Human Reproduction 2000;15:74 (Abstract of the 16th ESHRE, Bologna, 25‐28 June 2000; O‐0185).

References to ongoing studies

NCT01329302 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT01329302. Benefit of follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval for poor responder patient in an assisted reproductive technology program. Available from https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01329302. First posted 5 April 2011.
NCT02277210 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT02277210. Follicular flushing in patients with suboptimal responses. Available from https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02277210. First posted 28 October 2014.
NCT02641808 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT02641808. Does follicular flushing improve the outcome in monofollicular IVF therapy? (Flushing). Available from https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02641808. First posted 29 December 2015.

Additional references

GRADEpro GDT 2015 [Computer program]
    1. GRADE Working Group, McMaster University. GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed 23 October 2017. Hamilton (ON): GRADE Working Group, McMaster University, 2015.
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Higgins 2011b
    1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Janssenwillen 1997
    1. Janssenswillen, C. Christiaens, F. Camu, F. Van Steirteghem, A. The effect of propofol on parthenogenetic activation, in vitro fertilization and early development of mouse oocytes. Fertility and Sterility 1997;67:769‐74. - PubMed
Levy 2012
    1. Levy G, Hill MJ, Ramirez CI, Correa L, Ryan ME, DeCherney AH, et al. The use of follicle flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Human Reproduction 2012;27(8):2373‐9. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/des174] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Roque 2012
    1. Roque M, Sampaio M, Geber S. Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2012;29(11):1249‐54. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815-012-9869-9] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Tatone 1998
    1. Tatone C, Francion A, Marinangeli F, Lottan M, Varrassi G, Colonna R. An evaluation of propofol toxicity on mouse oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Human Reproduction 1998;13:430‐5. - PubMed
Wood 2000
    1. Wood C, Trounson AO. Historical perspectives of IVF. In: Trounson AO, Gardner DK editor(s). Handbook of In Vitro Fertilization. Second Edition. New York: CRC Press, 2000:4.
Zegers‐Hochschild 2017
    1. Zegers‐Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, Racowsky C, Mouzon J, Sokol R, et al. The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017. Fertility and Sterility 2017;108(3):393‐406. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.005] - DOI - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Wongtra‐ngan 2004
    1. Wongtra‐ngan S, Edi‐Osagie ECO, Vutyavanich T. Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004634] - DOI - PubMed
Wongtra‐Ngan 2010
    1. Wongtra‐Ngan S, Vutyavanich T, Brown J. Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004634.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources