Gynecological endocrinology : the official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Endocrinology · 2017
The effect of endometrial injury on implantation and clinical pregnancy rates.
Контролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Levin Dan, Hasson Joseph, Cohen Aviad, Or Yuval, Ata Baris, Barzilay Lilia, Almog Benny
Аннотация
AIM: To assess the effect of endometrial scratching (ES) on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcome (IVF-ET) Materials and methods: Retrospective matched case control study including all fresh IVF cycles performed between January 2006 and December 2012 at an academic IVF center. ES with an endometrial biopsy catheter was performed in the cycle preceding the index IVF cycle. Patients (n = 238) were pair matched with controls according to age, number of previous failed IVF cycles and number of embryos transferred.
RESULTS: Demographic and cycle characteristics were comparable in all of the following: age, number of previous cycles, number of collected oocyte, number of embryos transferred and quality of transferred embryos. Implantation, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates were comparable in both groups (28%, 34% and 18.4% vs 30%, 40.3% and 29%, in ES group and controls, respectively). Logistic regression analysis found no significant association between ES and pregnancy rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical endometrial stimulation did not improve implantation and pregnancy rates. Furthermore, no factors that may predict which patients could benefit from ES were identified. Further prospective studies are warranted to evaluate possible benefits in different subsets of patients such as patients with recurrent implantation failures.
RESULTS: Demographic and cycle characteristics were comparable in all of the following: age, number of previous cycles, number of collected oocyte, number of embryos transferred and quality of transferred embryos. Implantation, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates were comparable in both groups (28%, 34% and 18.4% vs 30%, 40.3% and 29%, in ES group and controls, respectively). Logistic regression analysis found no significant association between ES and pregnancy rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical endometrial stimulation did not improve implantation and pregnancy rates. Furthermore, no factors that may predict which patients could benefit from ES were identified. Further prospective studies are warranted to evaluate possible benefits in different subsets of patients such as patients with recurrent implantation failures.