Journal of South Asian Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2020 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparison of Clinical Pregnancy Rates and Implantation Rates in Hysteroscopic Lateral Metroplasty versus Endometrial Scratching in Patients of Repeated Implantation Failures

Ashish Kale, Ashwini Kale

Keywords : Clinical pregnancy rates, Endometrial scratching, Lateral metroplasty, Repeated implantation failure

Citation Information : Kale A, Kale A. Comparison of Clinical Pregnancy Rates and Implantation Rates in Hysteroscopic Lateral Metroplasty versus Endometrial Scratching in Patients of Repeated Implantation Failures. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2020; 12 (6):348-352.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-1835

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 12-04-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Introduction: Implantation is one of the rate-limiting steps of success rates in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Repeated implantation failure is defined as failure of good-quality embryos to successfully implant in uterine cavity in repeated IVF treatment cycle. The cause of such implantation failures may be maternal or embryonal. Endometrial scratching and lateral metroplasty are found to increase successful implantation rates in various studies. There is hardly any study in the literature comparing the success rates of endometrial scratching and hysteroscopic lateral metroplasty. Keeping in mind this fact, we conducted this comparative study to compare the successful pregnancy rates and clinical pregnancy rates in patients who had undergone endometrial scratching and hysteroscopic lateral metroplasty for repeated implantation failures. Materials and methods: A total of 60 patients having primary or secondary infertility and had history of repeated implantation failure were included in this study on the basis of a predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The patients were divided into two groups on the basis of treatment they received. In group A, 30 patients underwent endometrial scratching, and in group B, 30 patients underwent hysteroscopic lateral metroplasty. The successful pregnancy rates and clinical pregnancy rates in both the groups were compared. SPSS 22.0 was used for statistical analysis, and P value less than 0.05 was taken as statistically significant. Results: Out of 60 patients, 50 (87.5%) patients belonged to primary infertility, whereas 10 (12.5%) patients were found to have secondary infertility. The mean age of patients in group A was 34.12 ± 3.12, whereas the mean age in group B was 35.42 ± 4.46 years. The mean duration of infertility in patients of group A and group B was found to be 7.43 ± 2.50 and 6.93 ± 2.54 years, respectively. The mean number of antral follicle count in group A was 9.52 ± 1.82, whereas in group B, it was 10.42 ± 1.52. In group A, 12 (40%) patients were confirmed to be having successful pregnancy on the basis of β-hCG levels on D14, whereas 17 (56.67%) patients in group B were found to have successful pregnancy on the basis of β-hCG. Fetal cardiac activity was present in 13 (43.33%) patients and 18 (60%) patients in group A and group B, respectively (p = 0.301). The difference was not found to be statistically significant (p = 0.30). Conclusion: Endometrial scratching and hysteroscopic lateral metroplasty both are effective management strategies in patients having history of repeated implantation failure. Though lateral metroplasty appears to be a better choice, the difference was statistically insignificant (p > 0.05).

  1. Recurrent implantation failure: current update and clinical approach to an ongoing challenge. Fertil Steril 2012;97(5):1019–1020. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.03.033.
  2. Factors associated with failed treatment: an analysis of 121,744 women embarking on their first IVF cycles. PLoS One 2013;8(12):e82249. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082249.
  3. Recurrent implantation failure in assisted reproduction: how to counsel and manage. A. General considerations and treatment options that may benefit the couple. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;11(3):371–381. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60846-2.
  4. New insights into mechanisms behind miscarriage. BMC Med 2013;11:154. DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-154.
  5. Embryo aneuploidy screening for repeated implantation failure and unexplained recurrent miscarriage. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;13(1):38–46. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)62014-7.
  6. Local injury to the endometrium doubles the incidence of successful pregnancies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2003;79(6):1317–1322. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(03)00345-5.
  7. Reproductive performance after hysteroscopic metroplasty in the hypoplastic uterus: a study of 29 cases. BJOG 2002;109(12):1331–1334. DOI: 10.1046/j.1471-0528.2002.01448.x.
  8. Recurrent implantation failure: definition and management. Reprod Biomed Online 2014;28(1):14–38. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.08.011.
  9. Recurrent implantation failure: definition. J Assist Reprod Genet 2007;24(7):284–287. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-007-9147-4.
  10. Repeated implantation failure: clinical approach. Fertil Steril 2012;97(5):1039–1043. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.03.010.
  11. Investigation and treatment of repeated implantation failure following IVF-ET. Hum Reprod 2006;21(12):3036–3043. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/del305.
  12. Does Local endometrial injury in the nontransfer cycle improve the IVF-ET outcome in the subsequent cycle in patients with previous unsuccessful IVF? A randomized controlled pilot study. J Hum Reprod Sci 2010;3(1):15–19. DOI: 10.4103/0974-1208.63116.
  13. Effect of local endometrial injury in proliferative vs. luteal phase on IVF outcomes in unselected subfertile women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2017;15(1):75. DOI: 10.1186/s12958-017-0296-8.
  14. Endometrial scratching for women with repeated implantation failure. Hum Reprod 2014;29(12):2855–2856. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu257.
  15. Reproductive outcomes of office hysteroscopic metroplasty in women with unexplained infertility with dysmorphic uterus. Turk J Obstet Gynecol 2018;15(3):135–140. DOI: 10.4274/tjod.30111.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.