4.7 Article

Arcuate uterus: is there an impact on in vitro fertilization outcomes after euploid embryo transfer?

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 109, 期 4, 页码 638-643

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.12.001

关键词

Arcuate uterus; comprehensive chromosomal screening; implantation; in vitro fertilization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To study the impact of the arcuate uterus on euploid blastocyst-stage embryo transfer outcomes after comprehensive chromosomal screening (CCS). Design: Controlled retrospective trial. Setting: Tertiary care assisted reproduction technology (ART) center. Patient(s): Consecutive patients undergoing in vitro fertilization and euploid embryo transfer after CCS during 2014. Intervention(s): Ultrasound examinations and office hysteroscopy; array comparative genomic hybridization to perform CCS after a trophectoderm biopsy. Main Outcome Measure(s): Implantation and live-birth rates. Result(s): Patients were divided into two groups based on the presence (group 1) or absence (group 2) of arcuate uterus. Exclusion criteria were donor oocytes, evidence of other endometrial cavitary abnormalities, prior uterine surgery, and arcuate uterus <4 mm. Group 1 included 78 patients with arcuate uterus of mean depth 5.43 +/- 1.81 mm (range: 4-9.5 mm) undergoing 83 transfer cycles. Group 2 included 354 controls undergoing 378 transfer cycles. There were no differences between the groups in baseline characteristics or mean number of euploid embryos transferred. Cycle outcomes were similar between the two groups: rates of implantation (63.7% vs. 65.4%), live birth (68.67% vs. 67.81%), biochemical pregnancy (8.4% vs. 7.65%), and spontaneous abortion (4.8% vs. 4.27%). Conclusion(s): Arcuate uterus has no impact on ART outcomes after euploid embryo transfer subsequent to CCS, so arcuate uterus should be considered an incidental finding without an indication for surgical resection. (C) 2017 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据