The Endometrial Dynamics Seen in Assisted Reproduction

  • Debra S. Heller


Although advances have been rapid in assisted reproductive techniques, pregnancy rates have not been correspondingly high. Many researchers in the field are pointing to defects of endometrial receptivity as the limiting factor. This idea is supported by the marked increase in the pregnancy rate with donor egg protocols that more closely mimic natural endometrial cycles as compared with the artificially stimulated cycles of IVF,1 as well as by the greater success of recipients versus donors in shared embryo protocols.2


Embryo Transfer Implantation Rate Assist Reproduction Premature Ovarian Failure Control Ovarian Hyperstimulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Navot D, Bergh P, Williams M, et al. Poor oocyte quality rather than implantation failure as a cause of age-related decline in female fertility. Lancet. 1991; 337: 1375–1377.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Check J. The use of the donor oocyte program to evaluate embryo implantation. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1994; 734: 198–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Noyes R, Hertig A, Rock J. Dating the endometrial biopsy. Fertil Steril. 1950; 1: 3–25.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sauer M, Miles R, Dahmoush L, et al. Evaluating the effect of age on endometrial responsiveness to hormone replacement therapy: a histologic, ultrasonographic, and tissue receptor analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1993; 10: 47–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davies M, Anderson M, Mason B, et al. Oocyte donation: the role of endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod. 1990; 5: 862–879.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Navot D, Bergh P, Williams M, et al. An insight into early reproductive processes through the in vivo model of ovum donation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1991; 72: 408–414.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garcia J, Acosta A, Hsiu J, et al. Advanced endometrial maturation after ovulation induction with human menopausal gonadotropin/human chorionic gonadotropin for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1984; 41: 31–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graf M, Reyniak J, Battle-Mutter P, et al. Histologie evaluation of the luteal phase in women following follicle aspiration for oocyte retrieval. Fertil Steril. 1988; 49: 616–619.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sterzik K, Dallenbach C, Schneider V, et al. In vitro fertilization: the degree of endometrial insufficiency varies with the type of ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 1988; 50: 457–462.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohen J, Debache C, Pigeau F, et al. Sequential use of clomiphene citrate, human menopausal gonadotropin, and human chorionic gonadotropin in human in vitro fertilization. II Study of luteal phase adequacy following aspiration of the preovulatory follicles. Fertil Steril. 1984; 42: 360–365.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Punnonen R, Ashorn R, Heinonen P, et al. Endometrial maturation after sequential use of clomiphene citrate, human menopausal gonadotropin and human chorionic gonadotropin in in vitro fertilization. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1988; 5: 112–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ilesanmi A, Hawkins D, Lessey B. Immunohistochemical markers of uterine receptivity in the human endometrium. Micr Res Tech. 1993; 25: 208–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Birkenfeld A, Navot D, Levij I, et al. Advanced secretory changes in the proliferative human endometrial epithelium following clomiphene citrate treatment. Fertil Steril. 1986; 45: 462–468.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benda J. Clomiphene’s effect on the endometrium in infertility. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1992; 11: 273–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hosie M, Murphy C, Rogers P, et al. Morphometric comparison of uterine glandular epithelium in the early secretory phase from patients treated with different superovulatory drugs in an in vitro fertilization programme. Acad Anat. 1991; 142: 174–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Birkenfeld A, Mor S, Ezra J, et al. Premature luteinization during induction of follicular maturation with menotropin and menotropin-clomiphene combination. Hum Reprod. 1990; 5: 561–564.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bergh PA, Drews M, Masuku S, et al. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation may result in profound stromal advancement and is linked to subtle premature luteinization. Presented at 47th meeting of the American Fertility Society, Orlando, FL; October 21–23, 1991. Abstract.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Forman R, Eychenne B, Nessman C, et al. Assessing the early luteal phase in in vitro fertilization cycles: relationship between plasma steroids, endometrial receptors, and endometrial histology. Fertil Steril. 1989; 51: 310–316.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hegele-Hartung C, Mootz U, Beier H. Luteal control of endometrial receptivity and its modification by progesterone antagonists. Endocrinol. 1992; 131: 2446–2460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Toner J, Hassiakos D, Muasher S, et al. Endometrial receptivities after leu-prolide suppression and gonadotropin stimulation: histology, steroid receptor concentrations, and implantation rates. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1991; 622: 220–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Macrow P, Li T, Seif M, et al. Endometrial structure after superovulation: a prospective controlled study. Fertil Steril. 1994; 61: 696–699.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yaron Y, Botchen A, Amit A, et al. Endometrial receptivity in the light of modern assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril. 1994; 62: 225–232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cittadini E, Palermo R. The endometrium in human assisted reproduction. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1991; 622: 230–235.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Ziegler D. Hormonal control of endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod. 1995; 10: 4–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ben-Nun I, Ghetler Y, Jaffe R, et al. Effect of preovulatory progesterone administration on the endometrial maturation and implantation rate after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1990; 53: 76–81.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barash A, Czernobilsky B, Insler V, et al. Endometrial morphology and hormonal profiles in in vitro fertilization patients. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Rep Biol. 1992; 44: 117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Balasch J, Rivera F, Jove I, et al. Monoclonal enzyme immunoassay measurement of estradiol and progesterone receptors in in vitro fertilization and spontaneous cycles. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Rep Biol. 1992; 45: 113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Birkenfeld A, Yemini M. The endometrium in assisted reproductive technologies. Cell Biol Internat. 1994; 18: 1099–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Birkenfeld A, Mukada T, Minichiello L, et al. Incidence of autoimmune antibodies in failed embryo transfer cycles. Am J Rep Immunol. 1994; 31: 65–68.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Li T, Dockery P, Ramsewak S, et al. The variation of endometrial response to a standard hormone replacement therapy in women with premature ovarian failure. An ultrasonographic and histological study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991; 98: 656–661.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yaron Y, Botchan A, Amit A. Endometrial receptivity: the age-related decline in pregnancy rates and the effect of ovarian function. Fertil Steril. 1993; 60: 314–318.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rogers P, Murphy C, Cameron I, et al. Uterine receptivity in women receiving steroid replacement therapy for premature ovarian failure: ultrastructural and endocrinological parameters. Hum Reprod. 1989; 4: 349–354.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rogers P, Murphy C, Leeton J, et al. An ultrastructural study of human uterine epithelium from a patient with a confirmed pregnancy. Acta Anat Basel. 1989; 135: 176–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Younis J. Integrins. The long awaited norm for luteal phase evaluation or simply another “ alloyed gold standard“? [letter]. Fertil Steril. 1995; 63: 1352.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    de Ziegler D, Frydman R. Different implantation rates after transfers of cryo-preserved embryos originating from donated oocytes or from regular in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1990; 54: 682–688.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Martel D, Monier M, Roche D, et al. Hormonal dependence of pinopode formation at the uterine luminal surface. Hum Reprod. 1991; 6: 597–603.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sundstrom P, Nilsson C, Liedholm P. Scanning electron microscopy of human preimplantation endometrium in normal and clomiphene/human chorionic gonadotropin stimulated cycles. Fertil Steril. 198; 40: 642–647.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Psychoyos A, Nikos G. Uterine pinopodes as markers of uterine receptivity. Assist Reprod Rev. 1994; 4: 26–32.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dehou M, Lejeune B, Arijs C, et al. Endometrial morphology in stimulated in vitro fertilization cycles and after steroid replacement therapy in cases of primary ovarian failure. Fertil Steril. 1987; 48: 995–1000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    de Ziegler D, Fanchin R, Massoneau M, et al. Hormonal control of endometrial receptivity. The egg donation model and controlled ovarian hyperstimulation [review]. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1994; 734: 209–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Check J. Uterine receptivity in subjects with ovarial failure [letter, comment]. Fertil Steril. 1991; 55: 1208–1209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lessey B, Damjanovich L, Coutifaris C, et al. Integrin adhesion molecules in the human endometrium— correlation with the normal and abnormal menstrual cycle. J Clin Invest. 1992; 90: 188–195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lessey B, Castelbaum A, Sawin S, et al. Integrins as markers of uterine receptivity in women with primary unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril. 1995; 63: 535–542.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Castelbaum A, Wheeler J, Lessey B. Integrins! The long awaited norm for luteal phase evaluation or simply another “ alloyed gold standard”? [letter reply]. Fertil Steril. 1995; 63: 1353.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debra S. Heller

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations