Journals / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2015 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of endometrial biopsies of fertile women and womenwith repeated implantation failure at the ultrastructural level

Pages
706–713
Publication Date
2015-08-13
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: TEM analyses of endometrial samples from the RIF group revealed dramatic differences at the ultrastructural level compared to the controls, which may well be an underlying cause of their infertility.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/aim: The aim of this study was to compare the cellular properties of endometrial tissues from fertile patients and patients having at least 3 previous in vitro fertilization failures, during the implantation window.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and methods: The study involved 23 women, 14 infertile with a clinical diagnosis of repeated implantation failure (RIF) and 9 fertile, defined as the control group.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: TEM analyses of endometrial samples from the RIF group revealed dramatic differences at the ultrastructural level compared to the controls, which may well be an underlying cause of their infertility.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Endometrial receptivity · recurrent implantation failure · transmission electron microscopy

Abstract

Background/aim: The aim of this study was to compare the cellular properties of endometrial tissues from fertile patients and patients having at least 3 previous in vitro fertilization failures, during the implantation window. The ultrastructural evaluation of the endometrium in the implantation window may shed light on the complexity of the implantation failure paradigm. Materials and methods: The study involved 23 women, 14 infertile with a clinical diagnosis of repeated implantation failure (RIF) and 9 fertile, defined as the control group. Endometrial samples were examined by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Results: In the control group, secretory vacuoles and cytoplasmic projections filled with secretory material, called pinopodes, were noted; microvilli were observed on some apical surfaces; and ciliated cells were absent. In the RIF group, the number of pinopodes was remarkably lower, with some of them being immature. Moreover, decidualization of stromal cells was not frequent and fewer epithelial cells with poor secretory vacuoles were discerned. Conclusion: TEM analyses of endometrial samples from the RIF group revealed dramatic differences at the ultrastructural level compared to the controls, which may well be an underlying cause of their infertility.

Özet

Background/aim: The aim of this study was to compare the cellular properties of endometrial tissues from fertile patients and patients having at least 3 previous in vitro fertilization failures, during the implantation window. The ultrastructural evaluation of the endometrium in the implantation window may shed light on the complexity of the implantation failure paradigm. Materials and methods: The study involved 23 women, 14 infertile with a clinical diagnosis of repeated implantation failure (RIF) and 9 fertile, defined as the control group. Endometrial samples were examined by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Results: In the control group, secretory vacuoles and cytoplasmic projections filled with secretory material, called pinopodes, were noted; microvilli were observed on some apical surfaces; and ciliated cells were absent. In the RIF group, the number of pinopodes was remarkably lower, with some of them being immature. Moreover, decidualization of stromal cells was not frequent and fewer epithelial cells with poor secretory vacuoles were discerned. Conclusion: TEM analyses of endometrial samples from the RIF group revealed dramatic differences at the ultrastructural level compared to the controls, which may well be an underlying cause of their infertility.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAHAR, L., KAHRAMAN, S., ERAS, N., PIRKEVI, C. (2015). Comparison of endometrial biopsies of fertile women and womenwith repeated implantation failure at the ultrastructural level. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 3, 706–713. https://ajindex.com/articles/113973

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Guzeloglu-Kayisli O, Basar M, Arici A. Basic aspects of implantation. Reprod Biomed Online 2007; 15: 728–739.
  2. Nikas G, Aghajanova L. Endometrial pinopodes: some more understanding on human implantation? RBM Online 2002; 4: 18–23. 3. Fan W, Li SW, Li WH, Wang Y, Gong Y, Ma QH, Luo S. FOXO 1 expression and regulation in endometrial tissue during the menstrual cycle and in early pregnancy decidua. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2012; 74: 56–63. 4. Yılmaz N, Kılıç S, Madendağ Y, Madendağ I, Özgün A, Özakşit G, Batıoğlu S. Endometrial parameters in IVF and IUI administration on elderly women. Turk J Med Sci 2010; 40: 343–348. Murphy CR. Understanding the apical surface markers of uterine receptivity: pinopods or uterodomes? Human Reprod 2000; 15: 2451–2454.
  3. Adams SM, Murphy CR. A successful pregnancy following SEM fine tuning of hormonal priming. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2001; 1: 3. Salehnia M. Progesterone shifts the pinopodes expression of mouse endometrium to pre-implantation time after ovarian hyperstimulation. Iranian J Reprod Med 2003; 1: 20–23.
  4. Quinn CE, Casper RF. Pinopodes: a questionable role in endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod Update 2009; 15: 229– 236. Haouzi D, Assou S, Mahmoud K, Tondeur S, Rème T, Hedon B, De Vos J, Hamamah S. Gene expression profile of human endometrial receptivity: comparison between natural and stimulated cycles for the same patients. Hum Reprod 2009; 24: 1436–1445.
  5. Van Vaerenbergh I, McIntire R, Van Lommel L, Devroey P, Giudice L, Bourgaın C. Gene expression during successful implantation in a natural cycle. Fertil Steril 2010; 93: 15–18.
  6. Sandra O, Mansouri-Attia N, Lea RG. Novel aspects of endometrial function: a biological sensor of embryo quality and driver of pregnancy success. Reprod Fertil Dev 2011; 24: 68–79.
  7. Puri CP, Katkam RR, Sachdeva G, Patil V, Manjramkar DD, Kholkute SD. Endometrial contraception: modulation of molecular determinants of uterine receptivity. Steroids 2000; 65: 783–794.
  8. Imakawa K, Chang KT, Christenson RK. Pre-implantation conceptus and maternal uterine communications: molecular events leading to successful implantation. J Reprod Dev 2004; 50: 155–169.
  9. Rashid NA, Lalitkumar S, Lalitkumar PG, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Endometrial receptivity and human embryo implantation. Am J Reprod Immunol 2011; 66: 23–30.
  10. Achache H, Revel A. Endometrial receptivity markers, the journey to successful embryo implantation. Hum Reprod Update. 2006; 12: 731–746.
  11. Nikas G, Aghajanova L. Endometrial pinopodes: some more understand