Background and Significance: It has previously been observed that embryo implantation following assisted reproductive techniques is decreased among women with Müllerian anomalies, especially those with anomalies secondary to antenatal diethylstilbesterol (DES) exposure. Whereas it has been proposed that this is secondary to diminished endometrial receptivity, it is also possible that trans-cervical embryo transfer (ET) in the anomalous uterus is associated with reduced transfer efficiency. We hypothesized that the latter effect could be mitigated with the use of tubal embryo transfer (TET); to date no study has examined this possibility. Objective: To compare implantation and pregnancy rates following TET with those previously reported following trans-cervical ET in women with anomalous uteri. Materials and Methods: Between 1995 and 2003, 12 TET procedures were performed in 7 women with Müllerian anomalies. Anomalies included: T-shaped uterus/DES exposed (n=3), T-shaped sub-septate uterus (n=3), and uterus didelphys (n=1). Septae were incised hysteroscopically before fertility treatment. All patients had bilaterally patent fallopian tubes. Tubal ET (mean 4.2 ± 1.0 embryos) was performed via laparoscopy 48 hours after standard IVF in 3 cycles in 2 patients (ages 35 and 39), whereas in 9 cycles in 5 patients, TET was performed in conjunction with egg donation (8 fresh and 1 frozen-thawed). Results: Of the 7 study patients, 5 (71%) had a previous history of 15 failed cycles with trans-cervical ET. The 12 TET procedures resulted in 11 clinical pregnancies (92%; 95% CI: 63, 99%). There were 7 deliveries/ongoing pregnancies (58%; 95% CI: 27%, 85%). The per embryo implantation rate was 33%. The miscarriage rate was 27%. There were no ectopic pregnancies. Historical controls are depicted in Table 1. Table 1Implantation and pregnancy rates following trans-cervical ET in women with Müllerian anomalies.StudyNAnomalyImplantation rateClinical preg rate/ETOngoing preg rate/ETLavergne et al., 199638Septate, Unicornuate, Bicornuate5.8%ap<0.05 (vs. internal control group with normal uteri).13.6%ap<0.05 (vs. internal control group with normal uteri).8.7%Heinonen et al., 200017Unicornuate, Didelphic, Septate8.8%18.0%8.2%Attia et al., 200137Septate, Bicornuate, Didelphic, DES exposed—8.3%ap<0.05 (vs. internal control group with normal uteri).8.3%ap<0.05 (vs. internal control group with normal uteri).Karande et al., 199046DES exposed7.4%ap<0.05 (vs. internal control group with normal uteri).15.3%8.3%ap<0.05 (vs. internal control group with normal uteri).Noyes et al., 199650DES exposed13.6%32.0%28.0%Pal et al., 199717DES exposed2.3%ap<0.05 (vs. internal control group with normal uteri).12.5%ap<0.05 (vs. internal control group with normal uteri).8.0%ap<0.05 (vs. internal control group with normal uteri).a p<0.05 (vs. internal control group with normal uteri). Open table in a new tab Conclusions: We observed high implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates in women with Müllerian anomalies, suggesting that: 1) endometrial receptivity in anomalous uteri is preserved, and 2) transfer efficiency is reduced but may be restored with the use of TET.