OBJECTIVE: In the present paper we evaluate the incidence of intrauterine pathologies in a population undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Moreover, we compare the IVF outcome between patients with normal and abnormal uterine findings to determine if office hysteroscopy (OH) is of any clinical significance. METHODS: The hysteroscopic findings in 866 consecutive patients were analyzed. The study group included 555 patients at the first IVF attempt and 311 patients with two or more failed IVF cycles. RESULTS: All hysteroscopic parameters were considered normal in 514 cases (59.4%); in 352 cases (40.6%) various pathological conditions were found. Patients were divided into two groups according to the hysteroscopic findings. The implantation and pregnancy rates were similar between the groups. Comparing the clinical outcomes in patients with repeated IVF failure who had hysteroscopy with no pathology and with pathology, we did not find any statistical differences. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that hysteroscopy as a routine infertility examination should be performed in all patients, owing to the elevated incidence of hysteroscopic pathological findings (59.4%); hysteroscopy also seems to be the best way to repair the uterine cavity when pathological conditions are present. However, performing OH before IVF-embryo transfer is of no significant value in improving pregnancy outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: In the present paper we evaluate the incidence of intrauterine pathologies in a population undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Moreover, we compare the IVF outcome between patients with normal and abnormal uterine findings to determine if office hysteroscopy (OH) is of any clinical significance. METHODS: The hysteroscopic findings in 866 consecutive patients were analyzed. The study group included 555 patients at the first IVF attempt and 311 patients with two or more failed IVF cycles. RESULTS: All hysteroscopic parameters were considered normal in 514 cases (59.4%); in 352 cases (40.6%) various pathological conditions were found. Patients were divided into two groups according to the hysteroscopic findings. The implantation and pregnancy rates were similar between the groups. Comparing the clinical outcomes in patients with repeated IVF failure who had hysteroscopy with no pathology and with pathology, we did not find any statistical differences. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that hysteroscopy as a routine infertility examination should be performed in all patients, owing to the elevated incidence of hysteroscopic pathological findings (59.4%); hysteroscopy also seems to be the best way to repair the uterine cavity when pathological conditions are present. However, performing OH before IVF-embryo transfer is of no significant value in improving pregnancy outcomes.
Authors: Paweł Radwan; Michał Radwan; Marek Kozarzewski; Ireneusz Polac; Jacek Wilczyński Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2014-05-26 Impact factor: 1.195