Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2020, Vol. 47 Issue (5): 723-728    DOI: 10.31083/j.ceog.2020.05.5390
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Office hysteroscopy in cases of recurrent implantation failure; Do or not to do
M. Elmahdy1, *(), I. Elfourtia2, H. Maghraby1
1Alexandria University, Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Alexandria, Egypt
2Libya Ministry of Health, Misurata, Libya
Download:  PDF(285KB)  ( 69 ) Full text   ( 6 )
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  

Objective: To assess the management and outcome of office hysteroscopy in patients experiencing recurrent implantation failure (RIF) with two or more intra cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) failures. Study design: The prospective study was conducted at Elshatby maternity university hospital and Misrata National Center for Infertility, Misrata, Libya. One hundred and seventy-five female patients aged below 40 years and with 2 or more previous ICSI failures, with ≥ 2 fresh embryos transferred per attempt were included in the study. Office hysteroscopy was done in all patients to assess the endometrial cavity for any abnormal uterine findings and clinical pregnancy rate after hysteroscopy was evaluated. At the end of hysteroscopy, endometrial biopsy was done to observe prevalence of any different inflammatory cells, plasma cells or lymphocytes. Results: Out of 175 patients, 135 had abnormal hysteroscopic findings with single and combined pathologies. Endometritis 43 (65%) and septum with endometritis 34 (49%) were the most common pathologies observed. After office hysteroscopy, 13 (19.6%) women with single pathology and 13 (18.8%) women with combined pathologies became pregnant. Of the 175 patients studied, pregnancies occurred in 33 (18.8%) women with two or more ICSI failures after corrected endometrial pathology by hysteroscopy. Conclusion: Office hysteroscopy is a good diagnostic and therapeutic tool in cases of recurrent implantation failure. It has the potential to improve pregnancy rate in these patients.

Key words:  Recurrent implantation failure      Office hysteroscopy      ICSI failures      Clinical pregnancy     
Submitted:  27 September 2019      Accepted:  27 February 2020      Published:  15 October 2020     
*Corresponding Author(s):  M. Elmahdy     E-mail:  mahdy_moh@yahoo.com

Cite this article: 

M. Elmahdy, I. Elfourtia, H. Maghraby. Office hysteroscopy in cases of recurrent implantation failure; Do or not to do. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 723-728.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.ceog.2020.05.5390     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2020/V47/I5/723

Figure 1.  — Flow chart.

Table 1  — Baseline clinical and hormonal profile of the patients.
Parameters Values (n = 175)
Mean age (years) ± SD 34.4 ± 4.6
E2 levels on basal day 3 (pg/mL) 46.1 ± 35.6
AMH (pmol/L) 3.3 ± 3.2
FSH (IU/L) 7.7 ± 3.4
LH (IU/L) 5.4 ± 2.4
Prolactin (IU/L) 18.7 ± 14
TSH (IU/mL) 2.7 ± 2.2
Table 2  — Pregnancy in single pathologies after office hysteroscopy.
Hysteroscopic findings Number of cases (%) Number of pregnant (%)
Endometritis 43 (65%) 7 (16.3%)
U1* 3 (4.5%) 1 (33.3%)
U2a* 10 (15%) 4 (26.7%)
U3a* 2 (3%) 0 (0%)
Polyp 4 (6%) 0 (0%)
Adhesions 4 (6%) 1 (20%)
Total 66 (100%) 13 (19.6%)
Table 3  — Pregnancy in combined pathologies after office hysteroscopy.
Findings Number of cases (%)
Percent
Number of pregnant (%)
Septum U2a + endometritis 34 (49%) 10 (29.4%)
Septum U3 + endometritis 3a(4%) 1 (33.3%)
Polyp + Septum U2a 11 (15%) 1 (9.9%)
Polyp + endometritis 14 (20%) 1 (7.1%)
Three 7 (10.4%) 0 (0%)
Total 69 (100%) 13 (18.8%)
Table 4  — Pregnancy in number of failed ICSI after office hysteroscopy.
No. of counts
(% within number of failed ICSI)
Pregnancy Total
No Yes
2 count 78 (79.59%) 20 (20.41%) 98 (100.0%)
3 count 28 (77.8%) 8 (22.2%) 36 (100.0%)
4 count 20 (83.3%) 4 (16.7%) 24 (100.0%)
4 + count 16 (94.11%) 1 (5.89%) 17 (100.0%)
Total count
(% within number of failed ICSI)
142 (81.1%) 33(18.8%) 175 (100.0%)
[1] Coughlan C., Ledger W., Wang Q., Liu F., Demirol A., Gurgan T. et al.: “Recurrent implantation failure: definition and management”. Reprod. Biomed. Online, 2014, 28(1), 14-38.
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.08.011
[2] Margalioth E.J., Ben-Chetrit A., Gal M., Eldar-Geva T.: “Investigation and treatment of repeated implantation failure following IVF-ET”. Hum. Reprod., 2006, 21, 3036-43.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/del305 pmid: 16905766
[3] Demirol A., Gurgan T.: “Effect of treatment of intrauterine pathologies with office hysteroscopy in patients with recurrent IVF failure”. Reprod. Biomed. Online, 2004, 8, 590-4.
doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61108-X
[4] Azem F., Many A., Ben Ami I., Yovel I., Amit A., Lessing J.B., Kupferminc M.J.: “Increased rates of thrombophilia in women with repeated IVF failures”. Hum. Reprod., 2004, 19, 368-70.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh069 pmid: 14747183
[5] Grimbizis G., Tsolakidis D., Mikos T., Anagnostu E., Asimakopoulos E., Stamatopoulos E. et al.: “A prospective comparison of transvaginal ultrasound, saline infusion sonohysterography and diagnostic hysteroscopy in the evaluation of endometrial pathology”. Fertil. Steril., 2010, 94, 2720-2725.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.03.047
[6] Rogerson L., Bates J., Weston M., Duffy S.: “A comparison of outpatient hysteroscopy with saline infusion hysterosonography”. BJOG., 2002, 109, 800-804.
doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01478.x pmid: 12135217
[7] Apirakviriya C., Rungruxsirivorn T., Phupong V., Wisawasukmongchol W.: “Diagnostic accuracy of 3D-transvaginal ultrasound in detecting uterine cavity abnormalities in infertile patients as compared with hysteroscopy”. Euro J Obstet Gynecol Repro Biol, 2016, 200, 24-28.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.01.023
[8] Bashiri A., Halper K.I., Orvieto R.: “Recurrent Implantation Failure-update overview on etiology, diagnosis, treatment and future directions”. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol., 2018, 16, 121.
doi: 10.1186/s12958-018-0414-2 pmid: 30518389
[9] Larue L., Keromnes G., Massari A., Roche C., Moulin J., Gronier H., et al.: “Transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer in IVF”. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod., 2017, 46(5), 411-416.
doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.02.015 pmid: 28428123
[10] Barash A., Dekel N., Fieldust S., Segal I., Schechtman E., Granot I.: “Local injury to the endometrium doubles the incidence of successful pregnancies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization”. Fertil. Steril., 2003, 79, 1317-22.
doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(03)00345-5
[11] Parry J.P., Isaacson K.B.: “Hysteroscopy and why macroscopic uterine factors matter for fertility”. Fertil. Steril., 2019, 112(2), 203-210.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.06.031 pmid: 31352959
[12] Gürgan T., Kalem Z., NKalem M., Ruso H., Benkhalifa M., Makrigiannakis A.: “Systematic and standardized hysteroscopic endometrial injury for treatment of recurrent implantation failure”. Reprod. Biomed. Online, 2019, 39(3), 477-483.
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.02.014 pmid: 31405721
[13] Ferraretti A.P., La Marca A., Fauser B.C., Tarlatzis B., Nargund G., Gianaroli L.: “ESHRE working group on Poor Ovarian Response Definition. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: The Bologna criteria”. Hum. Reprod., 2011, 26, 1616-24.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/der092
[14] Visser J1., Ulander V.M., Helmerhorst F.M., Lampinen K., Morin-Papunen L., Bloemenkamp K.W., Kaaja R.J.: “Thromboprophylaxis for recurrent miscarriage in women with or without thrombophilia HABENOX*: A randomized multicentre trial”. Thromb. Haemost., 2011, 105, 295-301.
doi: 10.1160/TH10-05-0334 pmid: 21103659
[15] Clark P., Walker I.D., Langhorne P., Crichton L., Thomson A., Greaves M., et al.: “SPIN (Scottish Pregnancy Intervention) study: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial of low-molecular-weight heparin and low dose aspirin in women with recurrent miscarriage”. Blood, 2010, 115, 4162-7.
doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-01-267252 pmid: 20237316
[16] Siristatidis C., Chrelias C., Salamalekis G., Kassanos D.: “Office hysteroscopy: current trends and potential applications: a critical review”. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet., 2010, 282, 383-8.
doi: 10.1007/s00404-010-1437-x
[17] Johnston-MacAnanny E.B., Hartnett J., Engmann L.L., Nulsen J.C., Sanders M.M., Benadiva C.A.: “Chronic endometritis is a frequent finding in women with recurrent implantation failure after in vitro fertilization”. Fertil. Steril., 2010, 93, 437-41.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.131 pmid: 19217098
[18] Aletebi F.: “Hysteroscopy in women with implantation failures afterin vitro fertilization: Findings and effect on subsequent pregnancy rates”. Middle East Fertil. Soc. J., 2010, 15, 288-91.
doi: 10.1016/j.mefs.2010.06.008
[19] Cenksoy P., Ficicioglu C., Yıldırım G., Yesiladali M.: “Hysteroscopic findings in women with recurrent IVF failures and the effect of correction of hysteroscopic findings on subsequent pregnancy rates”. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet., 2013, 287(2), 357-60.
doi: 10.1007/s00404-012-2627-5
[20] Atakan T., Sezcan M., Hakan Y., Gürkan B.: “The effect of performing hysteroscopy prior to the first in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle on live birth rate”. Gynecol. Endocrinol., 2019, 35(5), 443-447.
doi: 10.1080/09513590.2018.1534953 pmid: 30614317
[21] Hossam E.S., Mahmoud E., Mostafa K.: “Eissa routine office hysteroscopy prior to ICSI and its impact on assisted reproduction program outcome: a randomized controlled trial”. Middle East Fertil. Soc. J., 2012, 17, 14-21.
doi: 10.1016/j.mefs.2011.04.005
[22] Seyam E.M., Hassan M.M., Mohamed Sayed Gad M.T., Mahmoud H.S., Ibrahim M.G.: “Pregnancy outcome after office microhysteroscopy in women with unexplained infertility”. Int. J. Fertil. Steril., 2015, 9(2), 168-175.
doi: 10.22074/ijfs.2015.4237 pmid: 26246874
[23] Hasegawa E., Ito H., Hasegawa F., Hatano K., Kazuka M., Usuda S., Isaka K.: “Expression of leukemia inhibitory factor in the endometrium in abnormal uterine cavities during the implantation window”. Fertil. Steril., 2012, 97(4), 953-58.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.01.113
[24] Raga F., Casan E.M., Bonilla-Musoles F.: “Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors in the endometrium of septate uterus”. Fertil. Steril., 2009, 92(3), 1085-90.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.07.1768
[25] El-Hamarneh T., Hey-Cunningham A.J., Berbic M., Al-Jefout M., Fraser I.S., Black K.: “Cellular immune environment in endometrial polyps”. Fertil. Steril., 2013, 100(5), 1364-72.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.06.050
[26] Rock J.A.: “Surgery for anomalies of the mullerian ducts”. Tompson J.D., Rock J.A., eds. TeLind's Operative Gynecology. 9th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: JB Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2003, 705.
[27] Reyes-Muñoz, E., Vitale, S.G., Alvarado-Rosales, D., Iyune-Cojab, E., Vitagliano, A., Lohmeyer, et al.: “Müllerian anomalies prevalence diagnosed by hysteroscopy and laparoscopy in mexican infertile women: results from a cohort study”. Diagnostics, 2019, 9, 149.
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics9040149
[28] Pacheco L.A., Laganà A.S., Garzon S., Garrido A.P., Gornés A.F., Ghezzi F. “Hysteroscopic outpatient metroplasty for T-shaped uterus in women with reproductive failure: results from a large prospective cohort study”. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 2019, 243, 173-178.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.09.023 pmid: 31570176
[29] Richlin S., Ramachandran S., Shanti A., Murphy A.A., Parthasarathy S.: “Glycodelin levels in uterine flushings and in plasma of patients with leiomyomas and polyps: implications and implantation”. Hum. Repro., 2002, 17, 2742-7.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/17.10.2742
[30] Rackow W., Jorgensen E., Taylor H.S.: “Endometrial polyps affect uterine receptivity”. Fertil. Steril., 2011, 95(8), 2690-2.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.12.034
[31] Revel A.: “Defective endometrial receptivity”. Fertil. Steril., 2012, 97(5), 1028-32.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.03.039
[32] Achache H., Tsafrir A., Prus D., Reich R., Revel A.: “Defective endometrial prostaglandin synthesis identified in patients with repeated implantation failure undergoing in vitro fertilization”. Fertil. Steril., 2010, 94(4), 1271-8.
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.07.1668
[1] E.G. Aydeniz, U. Sari, T.U.K. Dilek. Pregnancy success rate at recurrent implantation failure patients after hysteroscopic endometrial injury: preliminary study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(5): 709-712.
[2] Chunjuan Shen, Liping Wang, Xiaojie Wu, Shuhui Mao, Chunxia Fang. The relationship between vitamin D and IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(1): 12-15.
[3] Turgut Aydin, Huseyin Aksoy, Ozge Idem Karadag, Ulku Aksoy, Elif Cinar. A comparative study on therapeutic outcomes and clinical implications of transvaginal and transabdominal guidance during embryo transfer[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(6): 823-827.
[4] S.A. Hebisha, Hisham M. Adel. Impact of the oxytocin receptor antagonist atosiban administered shortly before embryo transfer on pregnancy rates after ICSI[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(4): 513-516.
[5] Bo Ma, Yuhu Li, Xiulan Zhang, Liuguang Zhang, Ning Li, Ping Yu. Supplementation of IVF solutions with melatonin improves assisted reproductive technology results[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(2): 209-213.
[6] P. Costur Filiz, E. Doger, Y. Cakiroglu, A. Saribacak, E. Caliskan, S. Filiz. The influence of different semen volumes on pregnancy rates in unexplained infertility[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(6): 905-909.
[7] A. Cohen, Y. Cohen, S. Sualhi, S. Rayman, F. Azem, G. Rattan. Office hysteroscopy for removal of retained products of conception: can we predict treatment outcome?[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(5): 683-685.
[8] M.K. Eken, F. Gungor Ugurlucan, G. Ilhan, E. Çöğendez, B. Devranoğlu, B. Keyif, A. Turfanda. Comparison of office hysteroscopy and dilatation & curettage regarding patient comfort, efficacy and quality of life in patients suffering from menorrhagia: prospective randomized study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(4): 599-604.
[9] T. Issat, J. Beta, M.A. Nowicka, A. Durczyński, A.J. Jakimiuk. Pain assessment during outpatient hysteroscopy using room temperature versus warm normal saline solution as a distention medium – a prospective randomized study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(3): 359-363.
No Suggested Reading articles found!