4.6 Article

Effect of treatment of intrauterine pathologies with office hysteroscopy in patients with recurrent lVF failure

Journal

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
Volume 8, Issue 5, Pages 590-594

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61108-X

Keywords

assisted reproduction; infertility; intrauterine pathology; office hysteroscopy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study was conducted to evaluate if the diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine lesions with office hysteroscopy is of value in improving the pregnancy outcome in patients with recurrent in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer failure. Four hundred and twenty-one patients who had undergone two or more failed IVF-embryo transfer cycles were prospectively randomized into two groups. Group I (n = 211) did not have office hysteroscopic evaluation, Group 11 (n = 2 10) had office hysteroscopy. The patients who had normal hysteroscopic findings were included in Group IIa (n = 154) and patients who had abnormal hysteroscopic findings were included in Group IIb (n = 56). Intrauterine lesions diagnosed were operated during the office procedure. Fifty-six (26%) patients in Group II had intrauterine pathologies and the treatment was performed at the same time. No difference existed in the mean number of oocyte retrieved, fertilization rate, number of embryos transferred or first trimester abortion rates among the patients in groups. Clinical pregnancy rates in Group I, Group IIa and Group IIb were 21.6%, 32.5% and 30.4% respectively. There was a significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rates between patients in Group I and Group IIa (21.6% and 32.5%, P = 0.044, respectively) and Group I and Group IIb (21.6% and 30.4%, P = 0.044, respectively). There was no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rate of patients in Groups IIa and IIb. Patients with normal hysterosalpingography but recurrent IVF-embryo transfer failure should be evaluated prior to commencing IVF-embryo transfer cycle to improve the clinical pregnancy rate.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available