Intracavitary physiotherapy is not inferior to endometrial scratching in patients with recurrent implantation failure
Intracavitary physiotherapy showed no inferiority to endometrial scratching in improving implantation and clinical pregnancy rates for patients with recurrent implantation failure.
One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works
This retrospective study investigated whether intracavitary physiotherapy is superior to endometrial scratching in 63 patients with recurrent implantation failure undergoing IVF/ICSI-embryo transfer, comparing three groups: intracavitary physiotherapy alone (n=20), both intracavitary physiotherapy and endometrial scratching (n=8), and endometrial scratching alone (n=35). The primary outcomes were implantation and clinical pregnancy rates, with pregnancy outcomes as secondary. No statistically significant differences were found between intracavitary physiotherapy and endometrial scratching or between the combined group and scratching alone for implantation, clinical pregnancy, or pregnancy outcomes (all P>0.05). The paper’s main limitation is that it is retrospective with small subgroup sizes, particularly the combined-treatment group. Relevance to endometriosis: the study focuses on recurrent implantation failure management and discusses uterine receptivity/local injury in a context that overlaps with implantation-related mechanisms implicated in endometriosis, though it does not explicitly study endometriosis patients.
Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works
Full text
6,403 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· 5 sections
· click to expand
Abstract
Methods
Results
Conclusions
References
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works
Citation neighborhood (sparse)
Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.
Cites (1)
References (15)
- Uterine Receptivity: Alterations Associated with Benign Gynecological Disease via openalex
- doi:10.1111/j.1479-828x.2009.01076.x via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.02.022 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.08.005 via openalex
- doi:10.1093/humrep/del305 via openalex
- doi:10.1093/humrep/deh579 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.064 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.05.062 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.12.075 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.10.004 via openalex
- doi:10.1093/humrep/13.suppl_3.219 via openalex
- doi:10.4103/0974-1208.63116 via openalex
- W2369650988 via openalex
- doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(03)00345-5 via openalex
- doi:10.1186/1477-7827-9-140 via openalex
Source provenance
- openalex
- last seen: 2026-05-11T05:41:49.878000+00:00