Impact of ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis on recipients of sibling oocytes.

Camargo, F.; Gaytan, J.L Ramirez; Caligara, C.; Simón, Carlos; Pellicer, A.; Remohı́, José

doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(01)02439-6

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Traditionally, investigators have hypothesized that the abnormal structure of the EMI and myometriumÐ especially in fundal localizationsÐcould interfere with normal implantation. However, the present evidence from recipients of sibling oocytes in IVF suggests that adenomyosis by classical ultrasound criteria (see below) has no impact on the rate of embryonic implantation (Camargo et al, 2001).…”

Section: Role Of the Emi And Adenomyosis In Uterine Bleeding Disordermentioning

confidence: 59%

Uterine adenomyosis in the infertility clinic

Devlieger

D’Hooghe²,

Timmerman³

2003

Human Reproduction Update

179

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Role Of the Emi And Adenomyosis In Uterine Bleeding Disordermentioning

confidence: 59%

Uterine adenomyosis in the infertility clinic

Devlieger

D’Hooghe²,

Timmerman³

2003

Human Reproduction Update

179

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This differs from a study by Camargo et al, which found no effects of adenomyosis on IVF-ET outcomes [16]. However, they did not consider myometrial thickening but used the presence of myometrial cysts as a diagnostic criteria for adenomyosis, which may be attribut- infertile patients [17].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer outcomes in relation to myometrial thickness

Youm

Choi

Han

2011

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While most studies have not formally controlled for maternal age ( de Souza et al , 1995 ; Chiang et al , 1999 ; Kissler et al , 2007 ; Youm et al , 2011 ; Naftalin et al , 2012 ; Salim et al , 2012 ), others have and still report poorer IVF outcomes in patients with SEOA ( Maubon et al , 2010 ; Thalluri and Tremellen, 2012 ; Mavrelos et al , 2017 ; Stanekova et al , 2018 ). Contradictory studies also exist, showing no differences, when controlling for age, in rates of pregnancy, implantation, miscarriage and live birth for patients having IVF treatment who do or do not have SEOA ( Camargo et al , 2001 ; Costello et al , 2011 ; Yan et al , 2014 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of adenomyosis on IVF outcomes: a prospective cohort study

Higgins

Fernandes

Costa

et al. 2021

Human Reproduction Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

STUDY QUESTION Does the presence of adenomyosis in women treated with IVF alter IVF outcomes? SUMMARY ANSWER Adenomyosis does not significantly alter IVF outcomes when adjusted for confounding factors including maternal age and smoking status. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Studies evaluating adenomyosis and its impact on infertility, particularly when focusing on IVF, remain controversial. Many studies report that adenomyosis has a detrimental effect on IVF outcomes, however age is strongly related with both the prevalence of adenomyosis and worse reproductive outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A prospective cohort study of women undergoing 4002 IVF cycles who had undergone a screening ultrasound assessing features of adenomyosis from 1 January 2016 to 31 March 2018 at a multi-site private fertility clinic. Of these women, 1228 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and commenced an IVF cycle, with a subset of 715 women undergoing an embryo transfer (ET). Women were defined as having adenomyosis if there was sonographic evidence of adenomyosis on ultrasound as per the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment criteria, and were then compared to women without. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS All women at a private multi-site IVF clinic who underwent a standardised ultrasound to identify features of adenomyosis and also commenced an IVF cycle were assessed for their outcomes. These included clinical pregnancy (defined as the presence of a gestational sac on ultrasound at 7 weeks’ gestation), clinical pregnancy loss, number of cancelled cycles, number of useful embryos for transfer or freezing and live birth rates. As a secondary aim, initiated stimulation cycles and those that had an ET were analysed separately to determine when an effect of adenomyosis on IVF might occur: during stimulation or transfer. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE When adjusting for confounders, women with and without sonographic features of adenomyosis had no significant differences in most of their IVF outcomes including live birth rates. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Adenomyosis had a detrimental impact on IVF outcomes prior to adjusting for confounding factors. No allowance was made for the possibility that confounding factors may merely reduce the effect size of adenomyosis on IVF outcomes. Second, despite a power calculation, the study was underpowered as not all fresh cycles led to an ET. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This is one of the largest studies to evaluate adenomyosis and IVF outcomes, while also importantly adjusting for confounding factors. The results suggest that adenomyosis does not have the detrimental impact on IVF that has previously been suggested, possibly reducing the importance of screening for and treating this entity. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study received no external funding. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ACTRN12617000796381.

show abstract

Impact of ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis on recipients of sibling oocytes.

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Uterine adenomyosis in the infertility clinic

Uterine adenomyosis in the infertility clinic

In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer outcomes in relation to myometrial thickness

The impact of adenomyosis on IVF outcomes: a prospective cohort study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About