Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T05:06:11.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 11 - Embryo Transfer

from Section 2 - Assisted Reproductive Procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2021

By
Eliezer Girsh  and
Irina Ayzikovich
Edited by
Eliezer Girsh
Eliezer Girsh
Affiliation:
Barzilai Medical Center, Ashkelon
Get access

Summary

In vitro fertilization (IVF) strives to ensure an in vitro environment that closely mimics the physiological environment of gametes. However, the providing of such conditions is limited by the lack of our knowledge on the actual natural levels of oxygen concentration, pH, and temperature within the reproductive tract.

Type
Chapter
Information
A Textbook of Clinical Embryology , pp. 126 - 143
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, FL. The effects of the early uterine environment on the subsequent development of embryo and fetus. Theriogenology 2000; 53:649–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DK, Lane, M, Calderon, I, Leeton, J. Environment of the preimplantation human embryo in vivo: metabolite analysis of oviduct and uterine fluids and metabolism of cumulus cells. Fertil. Steril. 1996; 65:349–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tay, JI, Rutherford, AJ, Killick, SR, et al. Human tubal fluid: production, nutrient composition and response to adrenergic agents. Hum. Reprod. 1997; 12:2451–2456.Google Scholar
Fischer, B, Bavister, BD. Oxygen tension in the oviduct and uterus of rhesus monkeys, hamsters and rabbits. J. Reprod. Fertil. 1993; 99:673–679.Google Scholar
Kaufman, DL, Mitchell, JA. Intrauterine oxygen tension during the oestrous cycle in the hamster: patterns of change. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Comp. Physiol. 1994; 107:673–678.Google Scholar
Ottosen, LD, Hindkaer, J, Husth, M, et al. Observations on intrauterine oxygen tension measured by fibre-optic microsensors. RBM Online 2006; 13:380–385.Google ScholarPubMed
Macdonald, RR, Lumley, IB. Endocervical pH measured in vivo through the normal menstrual cycle. Obstet. Gynecol. 1970; 35:202–206.Google ScholarPubMed
Will, MA, Clark, NA, Swain, JE. Biological pH buffers in IVF: help or hindrance to success. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2011; 28:711–724.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simic, N, Ravlic, A. Changes in basal body temperature and simple reaction times during the menstrual cycle. Arh. Hig. Rada Toksikol. 2013; 64:99–106.Google Scholar
Zuspan, FP, Rao, P. Thermogenic alterations in the woman. I. Interaction of amines, ovulation, and basal body temperature. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1974; 118:671–678.Google Scholar
Hunter, RH. Temperature gradients in female reproductive tissues. RBM Online 2012; 24:377–380.Google ScholarPubMed
Wong, JJ, Au, AY, Gao, D, et al. RBM3 regulates temperature sensitive miR-142-5p and miR-143 (thermomiRs), which target immune genes and control fever. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016; 44:2888–2897.Google Scholar
Parsons, JH, Bolton, VN, Wilson, L, Campbell, S. Pregnancies following in vitro fertilization and ultrasound-directed surgical embryo transfer by perurethral and transvaginal techniques. Fertil. Steril. 1987; 48:691–693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kato, O, Takatsuka, R, Asch, RH. Transvaginal-transmyometrial embryo transfer: the Towako method; experiences of 104 cases. Fertil. Steril. 1993; 59:51–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desai, NN, Goldstein, J, Rowland, DY, Goldfarb, JM. Morphological evaluation of human embryos and derivation of an embryo quality scoring system specific for day 3 embryos: a preliminary study. Hum. Reprod. 2000; 15:2190–2196.Google Scholar
Ziebe, S, Petersen, K, Lindenberg, S, et al. Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Hum. Reprod. 1997; 12:1545–1549.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahraman, S, Yakin, K, Dönmez, E, et al. Relationship between granular cytoplasm of oocytes and pregnancy outcome following intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum. Reprod. 2000; 15:2390–2393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Von Royen, E, Mangelschots, K, De Neubourg, D, et al. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Hum. Reprod. 1999; 14:2345–2349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giorgetti, C, Terriou, P, Auquier, P, et al. Embryo score to predict implantation after in-vitro fertilization: based on 957 single embryo transfers. Hum. Reprod. 1995; 10:2427–2431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antczak, M, Van Blerkom, J. Temporal and spatial aspects of fragmentation in early human embryos: possible effects on developmental competence and association with the differential elimination of regulatory proteins from polarized domains. Hum. Reprod. 1999; 14:429–447.Google Scholar
Shoukir, Y, Campana, A, Farley, T, Sakkas, D. Early cleavage of in-vitro fertilized human embryos to the 2-cell stage: a novel indicator of embryo quality and viability. Hum. Reprod. 1997; 12:1531–1536.Google Scholar
Magli, MC, Gianaroli, L, Ferraretti, AP, et al. Embryo morphology and development are dependent on the chromosomal complement. Fertil. Steril. 2007; 87:534–541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murakoshi, Y, Sueoka, K, Takahashi, K, et al. Embryo developmental capability and pregnancy outcome are related to the mitochondrial DNA copy number and ooplasmic volume. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2013; 30:1367–1375.Google Scholar
Braude, P, Bolton, V, Moore, S. Human gene expression first occurs between the four- and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature 1988; 332:459–461.Google Scholar
Gardner, DK, Vella, P, Lane, M, et al. Culture and transfer of human blastocysts to increase implantation rate and eliminate high order multiple gestations: a prospective randomised trial. Fertil. Steril. 1998; 69:84–88.Google Scholar
Dokras, A, Sargent, IL, Barlow, DH. Human blastocyst grading: an indicator of developmental potential? Hum. Reprod. 1993; 8:2119–2127.Google Scholar
Gardner, DK, Lane, M, Stevens, J, Schlenker, T, Schoolcraft, WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil. Steril. 2000; 73:1155–1158.Google Scholar
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Desai, J, et al. The risk of embryo-endometrium asynchrony increases with maternal age after ovarian stimulation and IVF. RBM Online 2016; 33:50–55.Google ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J, Malter, H, Fehilly, C, et al. Implantation of embryos after partial opening of oocyte zona pellucida to facilitate sperm penetration. Lancet 1988; 2:162.Google Scholar
De Vos, A, Van Steirteghem, A. Zona hardening, zona drilling and assisted hatching: new achievements in assisted reproduction. Cell Tissues Organs 2000; 166:220–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, HJ, Kim, CH, Lee, SM, et al. Outcomes of preimplantation genetic diagnosis using either zona drilling with acidified Tyrode’s solution or partial zona dissection. Clin. Exp. Reprod. Med. 2012; 39:118–124.Google Scholar
Obruca, A, Strohmer, H, Blaschitz, A, et al. Ultrastructural observations in human oocytes and preimplantation embryos after zona opening using an erbium–yttrium–aluminium–garnet (Er: YAG) laser. Hum Reprod. 1997; 12:2242–2245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahadevan, MM, Miller, MM, Maris, MO, Moutos, D. Assisted hatching of embryos by micromanipulation for human in vitro fertilization, UAMS experience. J. Ark. Med. Soc. 1998; 94:529–531.Google Scholar
Feng, HL, Hershlag, A, Scholl, GM, Cohen, MA. A retroprospective study comparing three different assisted hatching techniques. Fertil. Steril. 2009; 91:1323–1325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grace, J, Bolton, V, Braude, P, Khalaf, Y. Assisted hatching is more effective when embryo quality was optimal in previous failed IVF/ICSI cycles. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2007; 27:56–60.Google Scholar
Meldrum, DR, Wisot, A, Yee, B, et al. Assisted hatching reduces the age-related decline in IVF outcome in women younger than age 43 without increasing miscarriage or monozygotic twinning. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 1998; 15:418–421.Google Scholar
Cohen, J, Alikani, M, Trowbridge, J, Rosenwaks, Z. Implantation enhancement by selective assisted hatching using zona drilling of human embryos with poor prognosis. Hum. Reprod. 1992; 7:685–691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lanzendorf, SE, Nehchiri, F, Mayer, JF, Oehninger, S, Muasher, SJ. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study for the evaluation of assisted hatching in patients with advanced maternal age. Hum. Reprod. 1998; 13:409–413.Google Scholar
Hellebaut, S, De Sutter, P, Dozortsev, D, et al. Does assisted hatching improve implantation rates after in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection in all patients? A prospective randomized study. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 1996; 13:19–22.Google Scholar
Tucker, MJ, Morton, PC, Wright, G, et al. Enhancement of outcome from intracytoplasmic sperm injection: does co-culture or assisted hatching improve implantation rates? Hum. Reprod. 1996; 11:2434–2437.Google Scholar
Agarwal, SK, Coe, S, Buyalos, RP. The influence of uterine position on pregnancy rates with in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 1994; 11:323–324.Google Scholar
Moini, A, Kiani, K, Bahmanabadi, A, Akhoond, M, Akhlaghi, A. Improvement in pregnancy rate by removal of cervical discharge prior to embryo transfer in ICSI cycles: a randomised clinical trial. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2011; 51:315–320.Google Scholar
Lewin, A, Schenker, JG, Avrech, O, et al. The role of uterine straightening by passive bladder distension before embryo transfer in IVF cycles. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 1997; 14:32–34.Google Scholar
Bodri, D, Colodron, M, Garcia, D, et al. Transvaginal versus transabdominal ultrasound guidance for embryo transfer in donor oocyte recipients: a randomized clinical trial. Fertil. Steril. 2011; 95:2263–2268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mansour, R, Aboulghar, M, Serour, G. Dummy embryo transfer: a technique that minimizes the problems of embryo transfer and improves the pregnancy rate in human in vitro fertilization. Fertil. Steril. 1990; 54:678–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hearns-Stokes, RM, Miller, BT, Scott, L, et al. Pregnancy rates after embryo transfer depend on the provider at embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril. 2000; 74:80–86.Google Scholar
Angelini, A, Brusco, GF, Barnocchi, N, et al. Impact of physician performing embryo transfer on pregnancy rates in an assisted reproductive program. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2006; 23:329–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanchin, R, Harmas, A, Benaoudia, F, et al. Microbial flora of the cervix assessed at the time of embryo transfer adversely affects in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil. Steril. 1998; 70:866–870.Google Scholar
Egbase, PE, Udo, EE. Al-Sharhan, M, Grudzinskas, JG. Prophylactic antibiotics and endocervical microbial inoculation of the endometrium at embryo transfer. Lancet 1999; 354:651–652.Google Scholar
Buckett, W. A review and meta-analysis of prospective trials comparing different catheters used for embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril. 2006; 85:728–734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abou-Setta, AM. Air fluid versus fluid-only models of embryo catheter loading: a systematic review and meta-analysis. RBM Online 2007; 14:80–84.Google Scholar
Montag, M, Kupka, M, van der Ven, K, van der Ven, H. ET on day 3 using low versus high fluid volume. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2002; 102:57–60.Google Scholar
Matorras, R, Mendoza, R, Exposito, A, Rodriguez-Escudero, FJ. Influence of the time interval between embryo catheter loading and discharging on the success of IVF. Hum. Reprod. 2004; 19:2027–2030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lesny, P, Killick, SR, Tetlow, RL, Robinson, J, Maguiness, SD. Uterine junctional zone contractions during assisted reproduction cycles. Hum. Reprod. Update 1998; 4:440–445.Google Scholar
Waterstone, J, Curson, R, Parsons, J. Embryo transfer to low uterine cavity. Lancet 1991; 337:1413.Google Scholar
Fanchin, R, Righini, C, Olivennes, F, et al. Uterine contractions at the time of embryo transfer alter pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum. Reprod. 1998; 13:1968–1974.Google Scholar
Coroleu, B, Barri, PN, Carreras, O, et al. The influence of the depth of embryo replacement into the uterine cavity on implantation rates after IVF: a controlled, ultrasound-guided study. Hum. Reprod. 2002; 17:341–346.Google Scholar
Franco, JG Jr, Martins, AM, Baruffi, RL, et al. Best site for embryo transfer: the upper or lower half of endometrial cavity? Hum. Reprod. 2004; 19:1785–1790.Google Scholar
Kwon, H, Choi, DH, Kim, EK. Absolute position versus relative position in embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2015; 13:78.Google Scholar
Sallam, HN, Sadek, SS. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil. Steril. 2003; 80:1042–1046.Google Scholar
Wood, EG, Batzer, FR, Go, KJ, Gutmann, JN, Corson, SL. Ultrasound-guided soft catheter embryo transfers will improve pregnancy rates in in-vitro fertilization. Hum. Reprod. 2000; 15:107–112.Google Scholar
Porat, N, Boehnlein, LM, Schouweiler, CM, Kang, J, Lindheim, SR. Interim analysis of a randomized clinical trial comparing abdominal versus transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2010; 36:384–392.Google Scholar
Grygoruk, C, Pietrewicz, P, Modlinski, JA, et al. Influence of embryo transfer on embryo preimplantation development. Fertil. Steril. 2012; 97:1417–1421.Google Scholar
Groeneveld, E, de Leeuw, B, Vergouw, CG, et al. Standardization of catheter load speed during embryo transfer: comparison of manual and pump-regulated embryo transfer. RBM Online 2012; 24:163–169.Google Scholar
Safari, S, Razi, MH, Razi, Y. Routine use of EmbryoGlue(®) as embryo transfer medium does not improve the ART outcomes. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2015; 291:433–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, N, Gupta, M, Kriplani, A, Vanamail, P. Role of Embryo Glue as a transfer medium in the outcome of fresh non-donor in-vitro fertilization cycles. J. Hum. Reprod. Sci. 2015; 8:214–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedler, S, Schachter, M, Strassburger, D, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing recombinant hyaluronan/recombinant albumin versus human tubal fluid for cleavage stage embryo transfer in patients with multiple IVF-embryo transfer failure. Hum. Reprod. 2007; 22:2444–2448.Google Scholar
Bontekoe S, , Heineman, MJ, Johnson, N, Blake, D. Adherence compounds in embryo transfer media for assisted reproductive technologies. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014; 25:CD007421.Google Scholar
Uchiyama, T, Sakuta, T, Kanayama, T. Regulation of hyaluronan synthases in mouse uterine cervix. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2005; 327:927–932.Google Scholar
Furnus, CC, Valcarcel, A, Dulout, FN, Errecalde, AL. The hyaluronic acid receptor (CD44) is expressed in bovine oocytes and early stage embryos. Theriogenology 2003; 60:1633–1644.Google Scholar
Sroga, JM, Montville, CP, Aubuchon, M, Williams, DB, Thomas, MA. Effect of delayed versus immediate embryo transfer catheter removal on pregnancy outcomes during fresh cycles. Fertil. Steril. 2010; 93:2088–2090.Google Scholar
Tiras, B, Korucuoglu, U, Polat, M, et al. Effect of blood and mucus on the success rates of embryo transfers. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2012; 165:239–242.Google Scholar
Plowden, TC, Hill, MJ, Miles, SM, et al. Does the presence of blood in the catheter or the degree of difficulty of embryo transfer affect live birth? Reprod. Sci. 2017; 24:726–730.Google Scholar
Alvero, R, Hearns-Stokes, RM, Catherino, WH, Leondires, MP, Segars, JH. The presence of blood in the transfer catheter negatively influences outcome at embryo transfer. Hum. Reprod. 2003; 18:1848–1852.Google Scholar
Goudas, VT, Hammitt, DG, Damario, MA, et al. Blood on the embryo transfer catheter is associated with decreased rates of embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy with the use of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril. 1998; 70:878–882.Google Scholar
Sharif, K, Afnan, M, Lashen, H, et al. Is bed rest following embryo transfer necessary? Fertil. Steril. 1998; 69:478–481.Google Scholar
Bar-Hava, I, Kerner, R, Yoeli, R, et al. Immediate ambulation after embryo transfer: a prospective study. Fertil. Steril. 2005; 83:594–597.Google Scholar
Gaikwad, S, Garrido, N, Cobo, A, Pellicer, A, Remohi, J. Bed rest after embryo transfer negatively affects in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Fertil. Steril. 2013; 100:729–735.Google Scholar
Carrillo, AJ, Lane, B, Pridman, DD, et al. Improved clinical outcomes for in vitro fertilization with delay of embryo transfer from 48 to 72 hours after oocyte retrieval: use of glucose- and phosphate-free media. Fertil. Steril. 1998; 69:329–334.Google Scholar
Ertzeid, G, Dale, PO, Tanbo, T, et al. Clinical outcome of day 2 versus day 3 embryo transfer using serum-free culture media: a prospective randomized study. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 1999; 16:529–534.Google Scholar
Huisman, GJ, Alberda, AT, Leerentveld, RA, Verhoeff, A, Zeilmaker, GH. A comparison of in vitro fertilization results after embryo transfer after 2, 3, and 4 days of embryo culture. Fertil. Steril. 1994; 61:970–971.Google Scholar
Scholtes, MC, Zeilmaker, GH. A prospective, randomized study of embryo transfer results after 3 or 5 days of embryo culture in in vitro fertilization. Fertil. Steril. 1996; 65:1245–1248.Google Scholar
Milki, AA, Hinckley, MD, Fisch, JD, Dasig, D, Behr, B. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with day 3 embryo transfer in similar patient populations. Fertil. Steril. 2000; 73:126–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stillman, RJ, Richter, KS, Banks, NK, Graham, JR. Elective single embryo transfer: a 6-year progressive implementation of 784 single blastocyst transfers and the influence of payment method on patient choice. Fertil. Steril. 2009; 92:1895–1906.Google Scholar
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, et al. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil. Steril. 2011; 96:344–348.Google Scholar
Roque, M, Lattes, K, Serra, S, et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil. Steril. 2013; 99:156–162.Google Scholar
Evans, J, Hannan, NJ, Edgell, TA, et al. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer: backing clinical decisions with scientific and clinical evidence. Hum. Reprod. Update 2014; 20:808–821.Google Scholar
Ishihara, O, Araki, R, Kuwahara, A, et al. Impact of frozen-thawed single-blastocyst transfer on maternal and neonatal outcome: an analysis of 277,042 single-embryo transfer cycles from 2008 to 2010 in Japan. Fertil. Steril. 2014; 101:128–133.Google Scholar
Maheshwari, A, Raja, EA, Bhattacharya, S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes after either fresh or thawed frozen embryo transfer: an analysis of 112,432 singleton pregnancies recorded in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority anonymized dataset. Fertil. Steril. 2016; 106:1703–1708.Google Scholar
Shih, W, Rushford, DD, Bourne, H, et al. Factors affecting low birth weight after assisted reproduction technology: difference between transfer of fresh and cryopreserved embryos suggests an adverse effect of oocyte collection. Hum. Reprod. 2008; 23:1644–1653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinborg, A, Henningsen, AA, Loft, A, et al. Large baby syndrome in singletons born after frozen embryo transfer (FET): is it due to maternal factors or the cryotechnique? Hum. Reprod. 2014; 29:618–627.Google Scholar
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Bedient, CE, Garner, FC. Comparison of birth weights in patients randomly assigned to fresh or frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Fertil. Steril. 2016; 106:317–321.Google Scholar
Roque, M, Valle, M, Kostolias, A, Sampaio, M, Geber, S. Freeze-all cycle in reproductive medicine: current perspectives. JBRA Assist. Reprod. 2017; 21:49–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Acharya, KS, Acharya, CR, Bishop, K, et al. Freezing of all embryos in in vitro fertilization is beneficial in high responders, but not intermediate and low responders: an analysis of 82,935 cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry. Fertil. Steril. 2018; 110:880–887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kogan, MD, Alexander, GR, Kotelchuck, M, et al. Trends in twin birth outcomes and prenatal care utilization in the United States, 1981–1997. JAMA 2000; 284:335–341.Google Scholar
Scher, AI, Petterson, B, Blair, E, et al. The risk of mortality or cerebral palsy in twins: a collaborative population-based study. Pediatr. Res. 2002; 52:671–681.Google Scholar
Guerif, F, Lemseffer, M, Bidault, R, et al.Single day 2 embryo versus blastocyst-stage transfer: a prospective study integrating fresh and frozen embryo transfers. Hum. Reprod. 2009; 24:1051–1058.Google Scholar
Yanaihara, A, Yorimitsu, T, Motoyama, H, Watanabe, H, Kawamura, T. Monozygotic multiple gestation following in vitro fertilization: analysis of seven cases from Japan. J. Exp. Clin. Assist. Reprod. 2007; 4:4.Google Scholar
Lee, SF, Chapman, M, Bowyer, L. Monozygotic triplets after single blastocyst transfer: case report and literature review. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2008; 48:583–586.Google Scholar
Thurin, A, Hausken, J, Hillensjö, T, et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in-vitro fertilization. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004; 351:2392–2402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kjellberg, AT, Carlsson, P, Bergh, C. Randomized single versus double embryo transfer: obstetric and paediatric outcome and a cost-effectiveness analysis. Hum. Reprod. 2006; 21:210–216.Google Scholar
Ikemoto, Y, Kuroda, K, Ochiai, A, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of zygotic splitting after 937 848 single embryo transfer cycles. Hum. Reprod. 2018; 33:1984–1991.Google Scholar
Tabibzadeh, S. Molecular control of the implantation window. Hum. Reprod. Update 1998; 4:465–471.Google Scholar
Brosens, JJ, Salker, MS, Teklenburg, G, et al. Uterine selection of human embryos at implantation. Sci. Rep. 2014; 4:3894.Google Scholar
Achache, H, Revel, A. Endometrial receptivity markers, the journey to successful embryo implantation. Hum. Reprod. Update 2006; 12:731–746.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karizbodagh, MP, Rashidi, B, Sahebkar, A, Masoudifar, A, Mirzaei, H. Implantation window and angiogenesis. J. Cell Biochem. 2017; 118:4141–4151.Google Scholar
Shufaro, Y, Simon, A, Laufer, N, Fatum, M. Thin unresponsive endometrium – a possible complication of surgical curettage compromising ART outcome. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2008; 25:421–425.Google Scholar
El-Toukhy, T, Coomarasamy, A, Khairy, M, et al. The relationship between endometrial thickness and outcome of medicated frozen embryo replacement cycles. Fertil. Steril. 2008; 89:832–839.Google Scholar
Gallos, ID, Khairy, M, Chu, J, et al. Optimal endometrial thickness to maximize live births and minimize pregnancy losses: analysis of 25,767 fresh embryo transfers. RBM Online 2018; 37:542–548.Google Scholar
Liu, KE, Hartman, M, Hartman, A, Luo, ZC, Mahutte, N. The impact of a thin endometrial lining on fresh and frozen–thaw IVF outcomes: an analysis of over 40 000 embryo transfers. Hum. Reprod. 2018; 33:1883–1888.Google Scholar
Moran, NA, Sloan, DB. The hologenome concept: helpful or hollow? PLoS Biol. 2015; 13: e1002311.Google Scholar
Kroon, B, Hart, RJ, Wong, BM, Ford, E, Yazdani, A. Antibiotics prior to embryo transfer in ART. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2012; 3:CD008995.Google Scholar
Moore, DE, Soules, MR, Klein, NA, Fujimoto, VY, Agnew, KJ, Eschenbach, DA. Bacteria in the transfer catheter tip influence the live-birth rate after in vitro fertilization. Fertil. Steril. 2000; 74:1118–1124.Google Scholar
Garsia-Velasco, JA, Menabrito, M, Catalan, IB. What fertility specialists should know about the vaginal microbiome: a review. RBM Online 2017; 35:103–112.Google Scholar
Fox, CA, Wolff, HS, Baker, JA. Measurement of intra-vaginal and intra-uterine pressures during human coitus by radio-telemetry. J. Reprod. Fertil. 1970; 22:243–251.Google Scholar
Franchin, R, Righini, C, Olivennes, F, et al. Uterine contractions at the time of embryo transfer alter pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum. Reprod. 1998; 13:1968–1974.Google Scholar
Tremellen, KP, Valbuena, D, Landeras, J, et al. The effect of intercourse on pregnancy rates during assisted human reproduction. Hum. Reprod. 2000; 15:2653–2658.Google Scholar
Salamonsen, LA. Tissue injury and repair in the female human reproductive tract. Reproduction 2003; 125:301–311.Google Scholar
Gnainsky, Y, Aldo, PB, Barash, A, et al. Local injury of the endometrium induces an inflammatory response that promotes successful implantation. Fertil. Steril. 2010; 94:2030–2036.Google Scholar
Granot, I, Gnainsky, Y, Dekel, N. Endometrial inflammation and effect on implantation improvement and pregnancy outcome. Reproduction 2012; 144:661–668.Google Scholar
Dunn, CL, Kelly, RW, Critchley, HO. Decidualization of the human endometrial stromal cell: an enigmatic transformation. RBM Online 2003; 7:151–161.Google Scholar
Paria, BC, Reese, J, Das, SK, Dey, SK. Deciphering the cross-talk of implantation: advances and challenges. Science 2002; 296:2185–2188.Google Scholar
Siristatidis, C, Kreatsa, M, Koutlaki, N, et al. Endometrial injury for RIF patients undergoing IVF/ICSI: a prospective nonrandomized controlled trial. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2017; 33:297–300.Google Scholar
Gui, J, Xu, W, Yang, J, Feng, L, Jia, J. Impact of local endometrial injury on in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2018; 45:57–68. doi:10.1111/jog.13854.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×