Body · Pathway
IUI and IVF answer different problems, cost vastly different amounts, and succeed at very different rates depending on age, diagnosis, and reserve. This pathway is independent counsel — from people who sell neither — before you commit money, months, and hope.
IUI — intrauterine insemination — places prepared sperm into the uterus at ovulation, often with mild stimulation. It requires open tubes and reasonable sperm, and it makes sense for specific situations: mild male factor, cervical factor, unexplained infertility in younger couples, donor sperm. Per-cycle success is modest — typically in the 10–20% range depending on age and diagnosis — which is why it is usually attempted three to four times at most before reassessing.
IVF — fertilization in the laboratory after ovarian stimulation and egg retrieval — bypasses the tubes entirely and addresses a different class of problems: blocked tubes, significant male factor (with ICSI, injecting a single sperm into the egg), diminished reserve where time matters, endometriosis, and failed simpler treatment.
The costly mistake in both directions: paying for repeated IUIs in a situation IUI rarely solves — or being moved to IVF when a simpler, cheaper answer had a fair chance. Which of those risks applies to you is precisely what an independent reading determines.
IVF success is dominated by the age of the eggs. Per-retrieval live-birth rates decline from roughly the high-thirties-percent range for women under 35 to single digits by the mid-forties with own eggs — with wide variation by clinic, reserve, and diagnosis. Any clinic quoting one flat "success rate" without asking your age and history is marketing, not medicine.
A consultation also prepares you for the parts brochures skip: the two-week stimulation with injections and monitoring; retrieval under sedation; the attrition funnel from eggs → mature eggs → fertilized → good embryos — where numbers shrink at every step and hearts break when no one explained it; the freeze-all option; single-embryo transfer versus twins risk; and OHSS — the overstimulation syndrome worth knowing about before, not after.
In depth
Asked quietly, answered plainly
Ask three questions: 60% of what (per transfer? per retrieval? cumulative over several cycles?), for which age group, and measured as pregnancy test or live birth? The same clinic's number can be 60% or 25% depending on those definitions. We help you decode any quoted figure into the honest one.
For most women it is demanding rather than dangerous: injections, bloating, mood effects, and a retrieval under sedation with cramping after. The serious risk worth understanding is OHSS — much rarer now with modern protocols, but real; knowing its signs is part of informed consent, and we make sure you have them.
When IUI is genuinely indicated, most of its cumulative benefit arrives within three to four cycles; continuing past that rarely adds much and costs time that matters, especially after 35. If IUI wasn't well-indicated to begin with, the answer is zero more. Which case is yours is a work-up question — bring it.
It depends heavily on age and situation. PGT-A can reduce transfers-to-success and miscarriage risk in some older patients — and can discard potentially viable embryos in others. It is a genuine decision with trade-offs, not a default upgrade; we walk through where the evidence stands for your case.
One failed cycle is sadly common and often just probability — but "try again" should still come with a review: response to stimulation, egg maturity, fertilization rate, embryo quality, transfer conditions. If nothing is being reviewed and nothing changed, a second opinion is not disloyalty; it is due diligence.
Bring your results and the plan you were offered — in English, Persian, or Arabic. You will leave knowing which door is yours, and why.