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.

Objective:To systematically compare the clinical effects of simultaneous zona pellucida opening and prehatching in ectodermal biopsy techniques and to provide evidence-based medical evidence for the establishment of standard blastocyst biopsy procedure.Methods:We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, VIP and Wanfang Data published until August 2023. We searched the literatures for studies that compared the effects of two zona pellucida opening. Primary evaluation measures included clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate, and secondary evaluation indicators included biopsy success rate, euploid blastocyst rate, and miscarriage rate. Meta-analysis was performed using the R4.2.2 software meta package.Results:Six studies, including 12 223 biopsy embryos and 2 374 transfer cycles were subjected to analysis. The results of meta-analysis showed that the clinical pregnancy rate ( RR=1.22, 95% CI: 1.14-1.30, P<0.01) and the live birth rate ( RR=1.22, 95% CI: 1.12-1.32, P<0.01) in the simultaneous zona pellucida opening group were significantly higher than those in the prehatching group, and there were no significant differences between the two groups in biopsy success rate ( RR=1.38, 95% CI: 0.30-6.25, P=0.68), euploid blastocyst rate ( RR=0.98, 95% CI: 0.83-1.15, P=0.81) and miscarriage rate ( RR=1.06, 95% CI: 0.77-1.47, P=0.73). Conclusion:Stimultaneous zona pellucida opening blastocyst biopsy protocol is better than prehatching in terms of clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate. Due to the limitation of sample size and quality of included studies, more high-quality studies are needed on the effect of zona pellucida opening timing on clinical outcomes.

Objective:To systematically compare the clinical effects of simultaneous zona pellucida opening and prehatching in ectodermal biopsy techniques and to provide evidence-based medical evidence for the establishment of standard blastocyst biopsy procedure.Methods:We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, VIP and Wanfang Data published until August 2023. We searched the literatures for studies that compared the effects of two zona pellucida opening. Primary evaluation measures included clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate, and secondary evaluation indicators included biopsy success rate, euploid blastocyst rate, and miscarriage rate. Meta-analysis was performed using the R4.2.2 software meta package.Results:Six studies, including 12 223 biopsy embryos and 2 374 transfer cycles were subjected to analysis. The results of meta-analysis showed that the clinical pregnancy rate ( RR=1.22, 95% CI: 1.14-1.30, P<0.01) and the live birth rate ( RR=1.22, 95% CI: 1.12-1.32, P<0.01) in the simultaneous zona pellucida opening group were significantly higher than those in the prehatching group, and there were no significant differences between the two groups in biopsy success rate ( RR=1.38, 95% CI: 0.30-6.25, P=0.68), euploid blastocyst rate ( RR=0.98, 95% CI: 0.83-1.15, P=0.81) and miscarriage rate ( RR=1.06, 95% CI: 0.77-1.47, P=0.73). Conclusion:Stimultaneous zona pellucida opening blastocyst biopsy protocol is better than prehatching in terms of clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate. Due to the limitation of sample size and quality of included studies, more high-quality studies are needed on the effect of zona pellucida opening timing on clinical outcomes.