Timothy N Hickman1. 1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, USA. timothy.hickman@jhu.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of endometriosis on implantation. STUDY DESIGN: In a retrospective cohort study, 149 consecutive in vitro fertilization retrieved cycles were analyzed. Patients with endometriosis (n = 27, 31 cycles) were compared with a control group with tubal infertility (n = 104, 118 cycles). The main outcome measure was implantation rate (gestational sac per transferred embryo). RESULTS: The patients in the tubal infertility group were slightly younger and tended to have a better response to stimulation and increased number of oocytes retrieved than did the patients in the endometriosis group; however, there were no differences in fertilization rates, number of embryos transferred or clinical pregnancy rates per cycle between the endometriosis group and tubal infertility group. The overall clinical pregnancy rate per cycle was similar for women in the endometriosis and tubal infertility groups (54.8% and 55.1%, respectively). The implantation rate was not different in the endometriosis versus tubal infertility group (28% [28/100] and 29.8%, [108/363], respectively; P = .75, relative risk = .94, 95% confidence interval .66, 1.34). CONCLUSION: For women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer with endometriosis, the implantation rate is not markedly different from that for women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer with tubal infertility.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of endometriosis on implantation. STUDY DESIGN: In a retrospective cohort study, 149 consecutive in vitro fertilization retrieved cycles were analyzed. Patients with endometriosis (n = 27, 31 cycles) were compared with a control group with tubal infertility (n = 104, 118 cycles). The main outcome measure was implantation rate (gestational sac per transferred embryo). RESULTS: The patients in the tubal infertility group were slightly younger and tended to have a better response to stimulation and increased number of oocytes retrieved than did the patients in the endometriosis group; however, there were no differences in fertilization rates, number of embryos transferred or clinical pregnancy rates per cycle between the endometriosis group and tubal infertility group. The overall clinical pregnancy rate per cycle was similar for women in the endometriosis and tubal infertility groups (54.8% and 55.1%, respectively). The implantation rate was not different in the endometriosis versus tubal infertility group (28% [28/100] and 29.8%, [108/363], respectively; P = .75, relative risk = .94, 95% confidence interval .66, 1.34). CONCLUSION: For women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer with endometriosis, the implantation rate is not markedly different from that for women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer with tubal infertility.
Authors: Ektoras X Georgiou; Pedro Melo; Philip E Baker; Hassan N Sallam; Aydin Arici; Juan A Garcia-Velasco; Ahmed M Abou-Setta; Christian Becker; Ingrid E Granne Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-11-20