Dan Levin1,2, Joseph Hasson3, Aviad Cohen3, Yuval Or1, Baris Ata4, Lilia Barzilay3, Benny Almog3. 1. a Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology , IVF Unit, Kaplan Medical Center , Rehovot , Israel (affiliated to the Hebrew University Faculty of Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel). 2. b Clalit Health Services, Dan Petah-Tikva Region , Ramat Gan , Israel. 3. c Sarah Racine IVF Unit, Lis Maternity Hospital, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University , Tel Aviv , Israel , and. 4. d Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology , Koc University School of Medicine , Istanbul , Turkey.
Abstract
AIM: To assess the effect of endometrial scratching (ES) on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcome (IVF-ET) Materials and methods: Retrospective matched case control study including all fresh IVF cycles performed between January 2006 and December 2012 at an academic IVF center. ES with an endometrial biopsy catheter was performed in the cycle preceding the index IVF cycle. Patients (n = 238) were pair matched with controls according to age, number of previous failed IVF cycles and number of embryos transferred. RESULTS: Demographic and cycle characteristics were comparable in all of the following: age, number of previous cycles, number of collected oocyte, number of embryos transferred and quality of transferred embryos. Implantation, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates were comparable in both groups (28%, 34% and 18.4% vs 30%, 40.3% and 29%, in ES group and controls, respectively). Logistic regression analysis found no significant association between ES and pregnancy rate. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical endometrial stimulation did not improve implantation and pregnancy rates. Furthermore, no factors that may predict which patients could benefit from ES were identified. Further prospective studies are warranted to evaluate possible benefits in different subsets of patients such as patients with recurrent implantation failures.
AIM: To assess the effect of endometrial scratching (ES) on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcome (IVF-ET) Materials and methods: Retrospective matched case control study including all fresh IVF cycles performed between January 2006 and December 2012 at an academic IVF center. ES with an endometrial biopsy catheter was performed in the cycle preceding the index IVF cycle. Patients (n = 238) were pair matched with controls according to age, number of previous failed IVF cycles and number of embryos transferred. RESULTS: Demographic and cycle characteristics were comparable in all of the following: age, number of previous cycles, number of collected oocyte, number of embryos transferred and quality of transferred embryos. Implantation, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates were comparable in both groups (28%, 34% and 18.4% vs 30%, 40.3% and 29%, in ES group and controls, respectively). Logistic regression analysis found no significant association between ES and pregnancy rate. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical endometrial stimulation did not improve implantation and pregnancy rates. Furthermore, no factors that may predict which patients could benefit from ES were identified. Further prospective studies are warranted to evaluate possible benefits in different subsets of patients such as patients with recurrent implantation failures.