Effect of local endometrial injury on pregnancy outcomes in ovum donation cycles

Dain, Lena; Ojha, Kamal; Bider, David; Levron, Jacob; Zinchenko, Viktor; Walster, Sharon; Dirnfeld, Martha

doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.06.044

Cited by 26 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to improve implantation and pregnancy rates after IVF, it is necessary to develop strategies to optimize endometrial receptivity. However, only few interventions have been attempted to overcome suboptimal endometrial receptivity, including hormonal treatment, correction of intrauterine anatomic abnormalities and immunotherapy [ 7 , 8 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many studies reported on outcomes of endometrial injury in women with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) with conflicting results. While some studies demonstrated that implantation rates, and clinical pregnancy rates improved after endometrial injury [ 9 , 10 , 13 – 17 ], others showed no benefit [ 5 , 7 , 18 , 19 ]. Nevertheless, studies on using endometrial injury in unselected women undergoing IVF are scarce [ 5 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of local endometrial injury in proliferative vs. luteal phase on IVF outcomes in unselected subfertile women undergoing in vitro fertilization

Liu

Tal

et al. 2017

Reprod Biol Endocrinol

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMechanical endometrial injury prior to IVF has been suggested as a means to increase implantation rates by improving endometrial receptivity. However, the effects of endometrial injury in proliferative vs. luteal phase have not been studied before. This study aimed to explore whether endometrial injury in the proliferative phase of the preceding cycle before in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer (IVF-ET) improves the clinical outcomes in unselected subfertile women compared with injury in luteal phase.MethodsA group of 142 patients who were good responders to hormonal stimulation were randomized into four groups: injury group (group A: endometrial injury in proliferative phase, n = 38; group B: endometrium injury in luteal phase, n = 32), and non-injury group as control (group C: non-injury in proliferative phase, n = 36; group D: non-injury in luteal phase, n = 36). Patients in injury groups underwent endometrial injury in either proliferative phase or luteal phase in the preceding cycle before IVF treatment. Clinical outcomes including implantation, pregnancy, and live birth rates were analyzed among the four groups.ResultsThe baseline characteristics of the four groups including age, body mass index, duration, type and causes of infertility were similar. There were no significant differences in implantation, clinical pregnancy or live birth rates between injury group and non-injury group. Moreover, there were also no significant differences in implantation, clinical pregnancy, or live birth rates in injury in proliferative phase compared with luteal phase.ConclusionsEndometrial injury in the cycle preceding IVF of unselected subfertile women does not increase implantation, clinical pregnancy, or live birth rates. Furthermore, there is no significant difference in clinical outcomes between endometrial injury in the proliferative phase and injury in the luteal phase.Trial registrationThis study was retrospectively registered on May 26th, 2017 (ChiCTR-IOR-17011506).

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of local endometrial injury in proliferative vs. luteal phase on IVF outcomes in unselected subfertile women undergoing in vitro fertilization

Liu

Tal

et al. 2017

Reprod Biol Endocrinol

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Donor egg constitutes an ideal scenario in which to test the theoretical benefits of ES, since good-quality embryos are commonly transferred to normal uterine cavities, thus ruling out most of the confounding factors that may distort the interpretation of findings. To date, only one published retrospective analysis of 737 donor egg transfers has assessed the effect of local endometrial injury by means of Pipelle biopsy catheter, performed once either on day 20-22 of the spontaneous menstrual cycle or 1-2 weeks preceding the donor egg cycle before starting E 2 preparation (87). No statistically significant differences were found in clinical pregnancy rates or live birth rates between cycles subjected, or not, to endometrial injury.…”

Section: Strategies To Increase Implantation: Endometrial Scratchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovations in assisted reproductive technologies: impact on contemporary donor egg practice and future advances

Christianson

Bellver²

2018

Fertility and Sterility

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovations in assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have driven progress in the donor egg field since the birth of the first baby derived from a donor egg in 1983. Over time, donor oocytes have become an increasingly used option for patients unable to conceive with autologous oocytes. In donor egg, the unique separation of the oocyte source and recipient uterus has created a model that has propelled advances in ART. Progressive ART innovations that have optimized the oocyte donor and resulting embryo include the following: evaluation of ovarian reserve, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation regimens that reduce the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, blastocyst culture, oocyte cryopreservation, and preimplantation genetic testing. For donor egg recipients, methods to optimize the endometrium to maximize implantation include endometrial receptivity testing, immunologic donor-recipient matching, and increased understanding of the uterine microbiome. (Fertil Steril Ò 2018;110:994-1002. Ó2018 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

show abstract

“…91 Furthermore, a retrospective study on ovum donation cycles in which the recipients underwent endometrial injury did not find any benefit either. 92 A Cochrane review update on the use of endometrial injury for IVF treatment is currently under way. 87 So far, it appears that there may be a place for endometrial injury in the context of IVF treatment.…”

Section: Endometrial Injurymentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognostic Factors for IVF Success: Diagnostic Testing and Evidence-Based Interventions

Papathanasiou

Bhattacharya

2015

Semin Reprod Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous tests and interventions have been proposed for optimizing performance in preparation for in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. We critically appraised the available evidence underpinning some of the popular investigations and treatments, including the role of hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, ovarian reserve tests, sperm function tests, as well as the role of lifestyle modifications or surgery for endometriosis, fibroids, and endometrial polyps. We also reviewed the evidence behind novel techniques, such as the use of endometrial injury before IVF. Only a few of the aforementioned modalities are justified based on the available research evidence. Other factors may affect the uptake of a test or intervention before IVF, namely the complexity of the proposed modality, its potential for harm, and its cost-effectiveness.

show abstract

Effect of local endometrial injury on pregnancy outcomes in ovum donation cycles

Cited by 26 publications

References 37 publications

Effect of local endometrial injury in proliferative vs. luteal phase on IVF outcomes in unselected subfertile women undergoing in vitro fertilization

Effect of local endometrial injury in proliferative vs. luteal phase on IVF outcomes in unselected subfertile women undergoing in vitro fertilization

Innovations in assisted reproductive technologies: impact on contemporary donor egg practice and future advances

Prognostic Factors for IVF Success: Diagnostic Testing and Evidence-Based Interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About