Impact of Isthmocele on Assisted Reproductive Treatment Outcomes: An Age-matched Retrospective Study.

Autor:	Asoglu MR; Bahceci Fulya Assisted Reproduction Center (Drs. Asoglu and Bahceci). Electronic address: mresitasoglu@hotmail.com., Celik C; Bahceci Umut Assisted Reproduction Center (Drs. Celik, Ozturk, and Cavkaytar); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Uskudar University (Dr. Celik), Istanbul, Turkey., Ozturk E; Bahceci Umut Assisted Reproduction Center (Drs. Celik, Ozturk, and Cavkaytar)., Cavkaytar S; Bahceci Umut Assisted Reproduction Center (Drs. Celik, Ozturk, and Cavkaytar)., Bahceci M; Bahceci Fulya Assisted Reproduction Center (Drs. Asoglu and Bahceci).
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of minimally invasive gynecology [J Minim Invasive Gynecol] 2021 May; Vol. 28 (5), pp. 1113-1120. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Oct 08.
DOI:	10.1016/j.jmig.2020.10.002
Abstrakt:	Study Objective: To evaluate whether the presence of an ultrasonographic visible isthmocele has an impact on the chance of pregnancy in women undergoing embryo transfer. Design: Age-matched retrospective study. Setting: Private-assisted reproductive center. Patients: The study included a total of 150 patients with a history of cesarean delivery with 75 isthmocele cases and 75 controls. All patients underwent embryo transfer from January 2017 through June 2018. The diagnosis of isthmocele was based on transvaginal ultrasound assessment. Isthmocele was defined as an anechoic indentation on the previous cesarean scar at the midsagittal plane, with a depth of >1 mm. Interventions: Embryo transfer. Measurements and Main Results: The groups were similar in patient and treatment characteristics. The live birth rate was 44% in the isthmocele group and 46.7% in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-1.71; p = .743). The clinical pregnancy rates were 49.3% and 50.7%, respectively (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.50-1.79; p = .870). The miscarriage rate was greater in the isthmocele group (8%) than in the control group (4%); however, it did not reach statistical significance (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 0.50-8.67; p = .302). The multiple pregnancy rate was similar between the groups (8% vs 5.3%, respectively; OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.41-5.70; p = .513). The groups were also similar in ectopic pregnancy rates (p = .560). These outcomes remained similar when adjusted for potential confounders on the regression analysis. Conclusion: Isthmocele does not seem to have a significant impact on the chance of pregnancy in assisted reproductive treatment settings. However, the embryo transfer procedure may be more difficult in the presence of an isthmocele. (Copyright © 2020 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu