|
| First author/year | Technique versus technique | Group size | Pregnancy rates | Fertilization rate | Cleavage | Oocytes (number and quality) |
|
| Aghaamoo et al. 2014 [2] | GA versus spinal analgesia | 164 total
Spinal group ()
GA group
() | Spinal anesthesia is significantly related to increased chance of chemical pregnancy () | — | — | — |
|
| Azmude et al. 2013 [1] | GA versus spinal anesthesia | 200 total
GA group ()
Spinal group () | Spinal anesthesia increased significantly the chance of IVF success () | — | — | — |
|
| Milanini et al. 2008 [9] | Local anesthesia versus remifentanil | 548 total
Group I ()
Group II () | — | — | — | NS |
|
| Cerne et al. 2006 [4] | Preovarian block (POB) versus paracervical block (PCB) | 183 total
POB group ()
PCB group () | NS | NS | — | NS |
|
| Wilhelm et al. 2002 [6] | Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) with remifentanil versus GA | 251 total
GA group ()
MAC group () | MAC had a greater pregnancy rate
() | NS | NS | NS |
|
| Hammadeh et al. 1999 [8] | GA versus sedation | 202 total
Sedation group ()
GA group () | NS | NS | NS | The number of collected oocytes was significantly higher with general anesthesia () |
|
| Ng et al. 1999 [3] | Paracervical block with
1.5% lignocaine (group A) versus
normal saline (group B) versus
no local injection (group C) | 135 total
Group A ()
Group B ()
Group C () | NS | — | — | NS |
|
| Christiaens et al. 1998 [7] | Propofol versus
paracervical local anaesthetic block (PCB) | 202 total
Propofol group ()
PCB group () | NS | NS | NS | — |
|
| Botta et al. 1995 [5] | Epidural anesthesia (group A) versus
Sedation (group B) | 148 total
Group A ()
Group B () | NS | NS | NS | — |
|
