Objective:To evaluate the endometrial implantation window in patients with recurrent implantation failure using endometrial receptive array(ERA)sequencing or endometrial histological detection methods,and to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of two technologies for improving clinical outcomes in such patients.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted on clinical data of 125 patients diagnosed with repeated implantation failure in Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022.According to whether endometrial receptivity testing was accepted and different detection techniques were used,they were divided into a control group(n=36),a genomic group(n=35),and a histological group(n=54).The clinical data and pregnancy outcomes of the three groups were compared.Results:①The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the embryo implantation rate in the genomic group and histological group was significantly higher than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).There was no sta-tistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate between genomic and histological groups(P=0.48).②There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the three groups(P＞0.05).③Log rank test showed:The time for 50％of patients to reach live labor was significantly shorter than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05);There was no sta-tistically significant difference in the time to live birth in 50％of patients between the genomic and histological groups of 50％of patients(P＞0.05).④The average number of embryos transferred in the control group was significantly higher than that in the genomic and histological groups,with statistical significance(P＜0.05).The cost of genomic patients was significantly higher than that of histology group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).Conclusions:①Endometrial implantation window detection is feasible for patients with re-peated implantation failure,which can effectively shorten the time to live birth and reduce the number of transplan-ted embryos;②Both ERA sequencing and endometrial histology detection have limitations as methods to evaluate endometrial implantation window,and it is not clear which detection method has more advantages in accuracy and practicability.

Objective:To evaluate the endometrial implantation window in patients with recurrent implantation failure using endometrial receptive array(ERA)sequencing or endometrial histological detection methods,and to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of two technologies for improving clinical outcomes in such patients.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted on clinical data of 125 patients diagnosed with repeated implantation failure in Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022.According to whether endometrial receptivity testing was accepted and different detection techniques were used,they were divided into a control group(n=36),a genomic group(n=35),and a histological group(n=54).The clinical data and pregnancy outcomes of the three groups were compared.Results:①The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the embryo implantation rate in the genomic group and histological group was significantly higher than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).There was no sta-tistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate between genomic and histological groups(P=0.48).②There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the three groups(P＞0.05).③Log rank test showed:The time for 50％of patients to reach live labor was significantly shorter than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05);There was no sta-tistically significant difference in the time to live birth in 50％of patients between the genomic and histological groups of 50％of patients(P＞0.05).④The average number of embryos transferred in the control group was significantly higher than that in the genomic and histological groups,with statistical significance(P＜0.05).The cost of genomic patients was significantly higher than that of histology group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).Conclusions:①Endometrial implantation window detection is feasible for patients with re-peated implantation failure,which can effectively shorten the time to live birth and reduce the number of transplan-ted embryos;②Both ERA sequencing and endometrial histology detection have limitations as methods to evaluate endometrial implantation window,and it is not clear which detection method has more advantages in accuracy and practicability.

Objective:To evaluate the endometrial implantation window in patients with recurrent implantation failure using endometrial receptive array(ERA)sequencing or endometrial histological detection methods,and to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of two technologies for improving clinical outcomes in such patients.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted on clinical data of 125 patients diagnosed with repeated implantation failure in Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022.According to whether endometrial receptivity testing was accepted and different detection techniques were used,they were divided into a control group(n=36),a genomic group(n=35),and a histological group(n=54).The clinical data and pregnancy outcomes of the three groups were compared.Results:①The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the embryo implantation rate in the genomic group and histological group was significantly higher than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).There was no sta-tistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate between genomic and histological groups(P=0.48).②There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the three groups(P＞0.05).③Log rank test showed:The time for 50％of patients to reach live labor was significantly shorter than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05);There was no sta-tistically significant difference in the time to live birth in 50％of patients between the genomic and histological groups of 50％of patients(P＞0.05).④The average number of embryos transferred in the control group was significantly higher than that in the genomic and histological groups,with statistical significance(P＜0.05).The cost of genomic patients was significantly higher than that of histology group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).Conclusions:①Endometrial implantation window detection is feasible for patients with re-peated implantation failure,which can effectively shorten the time to live birth and reduce the number of transplan-ted embryos;②Both ERA sequencing and endometrial histology detection have limitations as methods to evaluate endometrial implantation window,and it is not clear which detection method has more advantages in accuracy and practicability.

Objective:To evaluate the endometrial implantation window in patients with recurrent implantation failure using endometrial receptive array(ERA)sequencing or endometrial histological detection methods,and to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of two technologies for improving clinical outcomes in such patients.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted on clinical data of 125 patients diagnosed with repeated implantation failure in Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022.According to whether endometrial receptivity testing was accepted and different detection techniques were used,they were divided into a control group(n=36),a genomic group(n=35),and a histological group(n=54).The clinical data and pregnancy outcomes of the three groups were compared.Results:①The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the embryo implantation rate in the genomic group and histological group was significantly higher than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).There was no sta-tistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate between genomic and histological groups(P=0.48).②There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the three groups(P＞0.05).③Log rank test showed:The time for 50％of patients to reach live labor was significantly shorter than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05);There was no sta-tistically significant difference in the time to live birth in 50％of patients between the genomic and histological groups of 50％of patients(P＞0.05).④The average number of embryos transferred in the control group was significantly higher than that in the genomic and histological groups,with statistical significance(P＜0.05).The cost of genomic patients was significantly higher than that of histology group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).Conclusions:①Endometrial implantation window detection is feasible for patients with re-peated implantation failure,which can effectively shorten the time to live birth and reduce the number of transplan-ted embryos;②Both ERA sequencing and endometrial histology detection have limitations as methods to evaluate endometrial implantation window,and it is not clear which detection method has more advantages in accuracy and practicability.

Objective:To evaluate the endometrial implantation window in patients with recurrent implantation failure using endometrial receptive array(ERA)sequencing or endometrial histological detection methods,and to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of two technologies for improving clinical outcomes in such patients.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted on clinical data of 125 patients diagnosed with repeated implantation failure in Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022.According to whether endometrial receptivity testing was accepted and different detection techniques were used,they were divided into a control group(n=36),a genomic group(n=35),and a histological group(n=54).The clinical data and pregnancy outcomes of the three groups were compared.Results:①The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the embryo implantation rate in the genomic group and histological group was significantly higher than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).There was no sta-tistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate between genomic and histological groups(P=0.48).②There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the three groups(P＞0.05).③Log rank test showed:The time for 50％of patients to reach live labor was significantly shorter than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05);There was no sta-tistically significant difference in the time to live birth in 50％of patients between the genomic and histological groups of 50％of patients(P＞0.05).④The average number of embryos transferred in the control group was significantly higher than that in the genomic and histological groups,with statistical significance(P＜0.05).The cost of genomic patients was significantly higher than that of histology group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).Conclusions:①Endometrial implantation window detection is feasible for patients with re-peated implantation failure,which can effectively shorten the time to live birth and reduce the number of transplan-ted embryos;②Both ERA sequencing and endometrial histology detection have limitations as methods to evaluate endometrial implantation window,and it is not clear which detection method has more advantages in accuracy and practicability.

Objective:To evaluate the endometrial implantation window in patients with recurrent implantation failure using endometrial receptive array(ERA)sequencing or endometrial histological detection methods,and to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of two technologies for improving clinical outcomes in such patients.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted on clinical data of 125 patients diagnosed with repeated implantation failure in Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022.According to whether endometrial receptivity testing was accepted and different detection techniques were used,they were divided into a control group(n=36),a genomic group(n=35),and a histological group(n=54).The clinical data and pregnancy outcomes of the three groups were compared.Results:①The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the embryo implantation rate in the genomic group and histological group was significantly higher than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).There was no sta-tistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate between genomic and histological groups(P=0.48).②There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the three groups(P＞0.05).③Log rank test showed:The time for 50％of patients to reach live labor was significantly shorter than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05);There was no sta-tistically significant difference in the time to live birth in 50％of patients between the genomic and histological groups of 50％of patients(P＞0.05).④The average number of embryos transferred in the control group was significantly higher than that in the genomic and histological groups,with statistical significance(P＜0.05).The cost of genomic patients was significantly higher than that of histology group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).Conclusions:①Endometrial implantation window detection is feasible for patients with re-peated implantation failure,which can effectively shorten the time to live birth and reduce the number of transplan-ted embryos;②Both ERA sequencing and endometrial histology detection have limitations as methods to evaluate endometrial implantation window,and it is not clear which detection method has more advantages in accuracy and practicability.

Objective:To evaluate the endometrial implantation window in patients with recurrent implantation failure using endometrial receptive array(ERA)sequencing or endometrial histological detection methods,and to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of two technologies for improving clinical outcomes in such patients.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted on clinical data of 125 patients diagnosed with repeated implantation failure in Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022.According to whether endometrial receptivity testing was accepted and different detection techniques were used,they were divided into a control group(n=36),a genomic group(n=35),and a histological group(n=54).The clinical data and pregnancy outcomes of the three groups were compared.Results:①The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the embryo implantation rate in the genomic group and histological group was significantly higher than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).There was no sta-tistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate between genomic and histological groups(P=0.48).②There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the three groups(P＞0.05).③Log rank test showed:The time for 50％of patients to reach live labor was significantly shorter than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05);There was no sta-tistically significant difference in the time to live birth in 50％of patients between the genomic and histological groups of 50％of patients(P＞0.05).④The average number of embryos transferred in the control group was significantly higher than that in the genomic and histological groups,with statistical significance(P＜0.05).The cost of genomic patients was significantly higher than that of histology group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).Conclusions:①Endometrial implantation window detection is feasible for patients with re-peated implantation failure,which can effectively shorten the time to live birth and reduce the number of transplan-ted embryos;②Both ERA sequencing and endometrial histology detection have limitations as methods to evaluate endometrial implantation window,and it is not clear which detection method has more advantages in accuracy and practicability.

Objective:To evaluate the endometrial implantation window in patients with recurrent implantation failure using endometrial receptive array(ERA)sequencing or endometrial histological detection methods,and to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of two technologies for improving clinical outcomes in such patients.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted on clinical data of 125 patients diagnosed with repeated implantation failure in Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022.According to whether endometrial receptivity testing was accepted and different detection techniques were used,they were divided into a control group(n=36),a genomic group(n=35),and a histological group(n=54).The clinical data and pregnancy outcomes of the three groups were compared.Results:①The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the embryo implantation rate in the genomic group and histological group was significantly higher than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).There was no sta-tistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate between genomic and histological groups(P=0.48).②There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the three groups(P＞0.05).③Log rank test showed:The time for 50％of patients to reach live labor was significantly shorter than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05);There was no sta-tistically significant difference in the time to live birth in 50％of patients between the genomic and histological groups of 50％of patients(P＞0.05).④The average number of embryos transferred in the control group was significantly higher than that in the genomic and histological groups,with statistical significance(P＜0.05).The cost of genomic patients was significantly higher than that of histology group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).Conclusions:①Endometrial implantation window detection is feasible for patients with re-peated implantation failure,which can effectively shorten the time to live birth and reduce the number of transplan-ted embryos;②Both ERA sequencing and endometrial histology detection have limitations as methods to evaluate endometrial implantation window,and it is not clear which detection method has more advantages in accuracy and practicability.