English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective  To investigate the effect of two treatments on the outcome of freeze-thaw embryo transfer for pregnancy assistance in thin endometrium.    Methods  A retrospective study was conducted on 66 patients who failed in the first cycle treated in the reproductive medicine center of the Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University from January 2018 to December 2019. Granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was used through cavity infusion in one group (n=25, and growth hormone (GH) was subcutaneously injected in the group (n=41). The clinical data of the two groups were compared, including morphology and thickness of the endometrium, biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, miscarriage rate, and live birth rate in each period of the hormone replacement cycle.    Results  There was no significant difference in age, BMI, AMH, FSH, LH, E 2 , infertility years, number of transferred embryos, basal endometrium, and thickness of endometrium on the day of P administration before and after treatment ( P &amp;gt; 0.05). After treatment, compared to the GH group, the G-CSF group presented higher biochemical pregnancy rate (56% versus 48.8%;  P =0.569), clinical pregnancy rate (52% versus 46.3%;  P =0.655), implantation rate (34.8% versus 27.5%;  P =0.391), and live birth rate (40% versus 31.7%;  P =0.493), but the differences were not statistically significant ( P  &amp;gt; 0.05). On the 5th day of treatment, the endometrial thickness in the G-CSF group was thinner than that in the GH group (4.83 ± 0.85 versus 5.75 ± 1.27;  P &amp;lt; 0.05), but it had no correlation with pregnancy outcome ( P  &amp;gt; 0.05). There was no significant difference in endometrial thickness between the two groups on the 7th, 9th day of treatment and the day of P administration ( P  &amp;gt; 0.05). On the 5th day of treatment, the proportion of endometrial type A morphology in the GH group was significantly higher than that in the G-CSF group ( P  &amp;lt; 0.05), while the type B morphology in the G-CSF group was significantly higher than that in the GH group ( P &amp;lt; 0.05).    Conclusion  Although G-CSF and GH may not have a role in increasing endometrium, both of them can improve the pregnancy outcomes of patients with thin endometrium in the FET cycle. And the effects of the two treatments were similar.

frontiers in endocrinology

Comparison of Frozen Embryo Transfer Outcomes Between Uterine Infusion of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor and Growth Hormone Application in Patients With Thin Endometrium: A Retrospective Study