Endometrial microstimulation effects on endometrial receptivity assessed by transvaginal color Doppler sonography

• Published in: BMC women's health Vol. 22; no. 1; p. 508
• Main Authors: Cheng, Fang, Xv, Bao-Mei, Liu, Yan-Lin, Sun, Rui, Wang, Lin, Yi, Jin-Ling
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 09-12-2022; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Biopsy; Blood flow; Cervix; Embryo Implantation; Endometrial microstimulation; Endometrial receptivity; Endometrium; Endometrium - blood supply; Endothelium; Female; Flow velocity; Humans; Implantation window phase; Measurement; Menstrual Cycle - physiology; Menstruation; Methods; Ovulation; Transvaginal color Doppler sonography; Transvaginal ultrasonography; Ultrasonic imaging; Ultrasonography, Doppler, Color; Uterus - diagnostic imaging; Veins & arteries; Womens health; China; Transvaginal color Doppler sonography; Implantation window phase; Endometrial microstimulation; Endometrial receptivity
• ISSN: 1472-6874; 1472-6874
• DOI: 10.1186/s12905-022-02096-z

This study investigated the effect of endometrial microstimulation (EM) on endometrial receptivity using transvaginal color Doppler sonography (TVCDS).
Women of childbearing age who were preparing to conceive (n = 90) were randomly divided into the EM group (n = 30), who were examined by EM on days 3-5 of the menstrual cycle, and the control group (n = 60). TVCDS was conducted during the implantation window phase, and endometrial thickness, endometrial pattern, endometrial movement, blood flow type, and uterine and spiral arterial hemodynamic parameter measurements were made. The groups were compared to identify differences.
Endometrial thickness (0.97 ± 0.18 cm and 0.95 ± 0.17 cm), endometrial movement (type 1: 46.7% and 51.7%; type 2: 30.0% and 28.3%; type 3: 6.7% and 5.0%; type 5: 16.7% and 15.0%), and hemodynamic parameters of the uterine (pulsatility index [PI]: 2.46 ± 0.50 and 2.41 ± 0.48; resistance index [RI]: 0.85 ± 0.05 and 0.84 ± 0.05) and spiral (PI: 1.11 ± 0.32 and 1.19 ± 0.33; RI: 0.48 ± 0.11 and 0.51 ± 0.08) arteries did not differ significantly between groups (P > 0.05). However, the endometrial pattern (a trilaminar pattern: 80.0% and 58.3%; P = 0.041) and blood flow type (type I: 16.7% and 43.3%; type II: 63.3% and 40.0%; type III 20.0% and 16.7%; P = 0.038) differed significantly between groups.
Endometrial microstimulation did not alter endometrial pathological staging, endometrial thickness, or movement, nor did it affect uterine and spiral arterial blood flow parameters. However, it may be able to abrade abnormal endometrial tissue, optimizing the endometrial pattern. Endometrial microstimulation may support local spiral artery regeneration and increase endometrial blood supply in new cycles.