Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 33, Issue 10, pp 1287–1304 | Cite as

Preparation of endometrium for frozen embryo replacement cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Hakan YaraliEmail author
  • Mehtap Polat
  • Sezcan Mumusoglu
  • Irem Yarali
  • Gurkan Bozdag



The purpose of this study was to evaluate the best protocol to prepare endometrium for frozen embryo replacement (FER) cycles.


This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. Following PubMed and OvidSP search, a total of 1166 studies published after 1990 were identified following removal of duplicates. Following exclusion of studies not matching our inclusion criteria, a total of 33 studies were analyzed. Primary outcome measure was live birth. The following protocols, including true natural cycle (tNC), modified natural cycle (mNC), artificial cycle (AC) with or without suppression, and mild ovarian stimulation (OS) with gonadotropin (Gn) or aromatase inhibitor (AI), were compared.


No statistically significant difference for both clinical pregnancy and live birth was noted between tNC and mNC groups. When tNC and AC without suppression groups are compared, there was a statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate in favor of tNC, whereas it failed to reach statistical significance for live birth. When tNC and AC with suppression groups are compared, there was a statistically significant difference in live birth rate favoring the latter. Similar pregnancy outcome was noted among mNC versus AC with or without suppression groups. Similarly, no difference in clinical pregnancy and live birth was noted when ACs with or without suppression groups are compared.


There is no consistent superiority of any endometrial preparation for FER. However, mNC has several advantages (being patient-friendly; yielding at least equivalent or better pregnancy rates when compared with tNC and AC with or without suppression; may not require LPS). Mild OS with Gn or AI may be promising.


Frozen embryo replacement Endometrial preparation Thawed embryo transfer Assisted reproduction Meta-analysis 


  1. 1.
    D’Angelo A. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome prevention strategies: cryopreservation of all embryos. Semin Reprod Med. 2010;28(6):513–8. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1265679.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Taylor TH, Patrick JL, Gitlin SA, Michael Wilson J, Crain JL, Griffin DK. Outcomes of blastocysts biopsied and vitrified once versus those cryopreserved twice for euploid blastocyst transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29(1):59–64. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.03.001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bourgain C, Devroey P. The endometrium in stimulated cycles for IVF. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9(6):515–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    European IVFMC, European Society of Human R, European IVFMC, European Society of Human R, Embryology, Kupka MS, D’Hooghe T, Ferraretti AP, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2011: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(2):233–48. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev319.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kupka MS, Ferraretti AP, de Mouzon J, Erb K, D’Hooghe T, Castilla JA, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: results generated from European registers by ESHREdagger. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(10):2099–113. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    CDC. Assisted reproductive technology, National summary report. 2013.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glujovsky D, Dominguez M, Fiszbajn G, Papier S, Lavolpe M, Sueldo C. A shared egg donor program: which is the minimum number of oocytes to be allocated? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(3):263–7. doi: 10.1007/s10815-010-9511-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Groenewoud ER, Cantineau AE, Kollen BJ, Macklon NS, Cohlen BJ. What is the optimal means of preparing the endometrium in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(5):458–70. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmt030.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Andersen AG, Als-Nielsen B, Hornnes PJ, Franch AL. Time interval from human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) injection to follicular rupture. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(12):3202–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Park SJ, Goldsmith LT, Skurnick JH, Wojtczuk A, Weiss G. Characteristics of the urinary luteinizing hormone surge in young ovulatory women. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(3):684–90. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.01.045.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bjuresten K, Landgren BM, Hovatta O, Stavreus-Evers A. Luteal phase progesterone increases live birth rate after frozen embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(2):534–7. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.05.019.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fauser BC, de Jong D, Olivennes F, Wramsby H, Tay C, Itskovitz-Eldor J, et al. Endocrine profiles after triggering of final oocyte maturation with GnRH agonist after cotreatment with the GnRH antagonist ganirelix during ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002;87(2):709–15. doi: 10.1210/jcem.87.2.8197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Casper RF, Yanushpolsky EH. Optimal endometrial preparation for frozen embryo transfer cycles: window of implantation and progesterone support. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(4):867–72. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.01.006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eftekhar M, Rahsepar M, Rahmani E. Effect of progesterone supplementation on natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Fertil Steril. 2013;7(1):13–20.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dal Prato L, Borini A, Cattoli M, Bonu MA, Sciajno R, Flamigni C. Endometrial preparation for frozen-thawed embryo transfer with or without pretreatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(5):956–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van de Vijver A, Polyzos NP, Van Landuyt L, De Vos M, Camus M, Stoop D, et al. Cryopreserved embryo transfer in an artificial cycle: is GnRH agonist down-regulation necessary? Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29(5):588–94. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.08.005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van der Auwera I, Meuleman C, Koninckx PR. Human menopausal gonadotrophin increases pregnancy rate in comparison with clomiphene citrate during replacement cycles of frozen/thawed pronucleate ova. Hum Reprod. 1994;9(8):1556–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peeraer K, Couck I, Debrock S, De Neubourg D, De Loecker P, Tomassetti C, et al. Frozen-thawed embryo transfer in a natural or mildly hormonally stimulated cycle in women with regular ovulatory cycles: a RCT. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(11):2552–62. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ezoe K, Daikoku T, Yabuuchi A, Murata N, Kawano H, Abe T, et al. Ovarian stimulation using human chorionic gonadotrophin impairs blastocyst implantation and decidualization by altering ovarian hormone levels and downstream signaling in mice. Mol Hum Reprod. 2014;20(11):1101–16. doi: 10.1093/molehr/gau065.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horcajadas JA, Minguez P, Dopazo J, Esteban FJ, Dominguez F, Giudice LC, et al. Controlled ovarian stimulation induces a functional genomic delay of the endometrium with potential clinical implications. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93(11):4500–10. doi: 10.1210/jc.2008-0588.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Glujovsky D, Pesce R, Fiszbajn G, Sueldo C, Hart RJ, Ciapponi A. Endometrial preparation for women undergoing embryo transfer with frozen embryos or embryos derived from donor oocytes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;1:CD006359. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006359.pub2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    El Bahja D. Frozen embryo transfer protocol: does spontaneous cycle give good results? Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2012.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yishia D. Do we need to artificially prepare the endometrium for frozen embryo transfer in normal cycling women? A controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:112.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Belaisch-Allart J. Clinical management of a frozen–thawed embryo transfer cycle. Abstracts of the 10th Annual Meeting of the ESHRE Brussels. 1994:138-9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gonzales J. Natural cycle and hormonal replacement in FET: implantation and pregnancy rates. Abstract Book of the 48th Meeting of the American Fertility Society. 1992:42.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cattoli M. Arandomized prospective studyon cryopreserved-thawedembryo transfer: natural versus homrone replacement cycles. Abstracts of the 10th Annual Meeting of the ESHRE Brussels. 1994;356:139.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Alama P. Higher ongoing pregnancy rates in blastocyst transfer of frozen-thawed embryos in natural cycles than in hormone replacement therapy cycles. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dolan P. Natural cycles and estrogen/progestone induced cycles produce an equallly receptive endometrium for implantation of cryopreserved embryos. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England) 1991:16.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee S. Comparison of clinical outcome of frozen–thawed embryo transfer cycles between natural and artificial (hormone-treated) cycles. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spandorfer S. Blastocyst frozen embryo transfer (FET): comparison of outcome with replacement in natural or programmed/medicated cycle. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Azimi Nekoo E, Chamani M, Shahrokh Tehrani E, Hossein Rashidi B, Davari Tanha F, Kalantari V. Artificial endometrial preparation for frozen-thawed embryo transfer with or without pretreatment with depot gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist in women with regular menses. J Fam Reprod Health. 2015;9(1):1–4.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kawamura T, Motoyama H, Yanaihara A, Yoramitsu TAA, Karasawa K, et al. Clinical outcomes of two different endometrial preparation methods for cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfer in patients with a normal menstrual cycle. Reprod Med Biol. 2007;6(1):53–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fatemi HM, Kyrou D, Bourgain C, Van den Abbeel E, Griesinger G, Devroey P. Cryopreserved-thawed human embryo transfer: spontaneous natural cycle is superior to human chorionic gonadotropin-induced natural cycle. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2054–8. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.11.036.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weissman A, Horowitz E, Ravhon A, Steinfeld Z, Mutzafi R, Golan A, et al. Spontaneous ovulation versus HCG triggering for timing natural-cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a randomized study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23(4):484–9. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.06.004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chang EM, Han JE, Kim YS, Lyu SW, Lee WS, Yoon TK. Use of the natural cycle and vitrification thawed blastocyst transfer results in better in-vitro fertilization outcomes : cycle regimens of vitrification thawed blastocyst transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(4):369–74. doi: 10.1007/s10815-010-9530-4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tomas C, Alsbjerg B, Martikainen H, Humaidan P. Pregnancy loss after frozen-embryo transfer—a comparison of three protocols. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(5):1165–9. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.07.1058.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Weissman A, Levin D, Ravhon A, Eran H, Golan A, Levran D. What is the preferred method for timing natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer? Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19(1):66–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Levron J, Yerushalmi GM, Brengauz M, Gat I, Katorza E. Comparison between two protocols for thawed embryo transfer: natural cycle versus exogenous hormone replacement. Gynecol Endocrinol : Off J Int Soc Gynecol Endocrinol. 2014;30(7):494–7. doi: 10.3109/09513590.2014.900032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Loh SK, Leong NK. Factors affecting success in an embryo cryopreservation programme. Ann Acad Med Singap. 1999;28(2):260–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Morozov V, Ruman J, Kenigsberg D, Moodie G, Brenner S. Natural cycle cryo-thaw transfer may improve pregnancy outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24(4):119–23. doi: 10.1007/s10815-006-9100-y.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Orvieto R, Feldman N, Lantsberg D, Manela D, Zilberberg E, Haas J. Natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer—can we improve cycle outcome? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(5):611–5. doi: 10.1007/s10815-016-0685-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Veleva Z, Orava M, Nuojua-Huttunen S, Tapanainen JS, Martikainen H. Factors affecting the outcome of frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(9):2425–31. doi: 10.1093/humrep/det251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Xiao Z, Zhou X, Xu W, Yang J, Xie Q. Natural cycle is superior to hormone replacement therapy cycle for vitrificated-preserved frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2012;58(2):107–12. doi: 10.3109/19396368.2011.646047.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mounce G, McVeigh E, Turner K, Child TJ. Randomized, controlled pilot trial of natural versus hormone replacement therapy cycles in frozen embryo replacement in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(4):915–20. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.1131. e1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tanos V, Friedler S, Zajicek G, Neiger M, Lewin A, Schenker JG. The impact of endometrial preparation on implantation following cryopreserved-thawed-embryo transfer. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 1996;41(4):227–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    al-Shawaf T, Dave R, Harper J, Linehan D, Riley P, Craft I. Transfer of embryos into the uterus: how much do technical factors affect pregnancy rates? J Assist Reprod Genet. 1993;10(1):31–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gelbaya TA, Nardo LG, Hunter HR, Fitzgerald CT, Horne G, Pease EE, et al. Cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfer in natural or down-regulated hormonally controlled cycles: a retrospective study. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(3):603–9. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.09.015.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hill MJ, Miller KA, Frattarelli JL. A GnRH agonist and exogenous hormone stimulation protocol has a higher live-birth rate than a natural endogenous hormone protocol for frozen-thawed blastocyst-stage embryo transfer cycles: an analysis of 1391 cycles. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):416–22. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.11.027.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Queenan Jr JT, Veeck LL, Seltman HJ, Muasher SJ. Transfer of cryopreserved-thawed pre-embryos in a natural cycle or a programmed cycle with exogenous hormonal replacement yields similar pregnancy results. Fertil Steril. 1994;62(3):545–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Groenewoud ER, Cohlen BJ, Al-Oraiby A, Brinkhuis EA, Broekmans FJ, de Bruin JP, et al. A randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial of modified natural versus artificial cycle for cryo-thawed embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2016. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Givens CR, Markun LC, Ryan IP, Chenette PE, Herbert CM, Schriock ED. Outcomes of natural cycles versus programmed cycles for 1677 frozen-thawed embryo transfers. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19(3):380–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hancke K, More S, Kreienberg R, Weiss JM. Patients undergoing frozen-thawed embryo transfer have similar live birth rates in spontaneous and artificial cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(5):403–7. doi: 10.1007/s10815-012-9724-z.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Konc J, Kanyo K, Varga E, Kriston R, Cseh S. The effect of cycle regimen used for endometrium preparation on the outcome of day 3 frozen embryo transfer cycle. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(2):767–8. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.09.053.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lathi RB, Chi YY, Liu J, Saravanabavanandhan B, Hegde A, Baker VL. Frozen blastocyst embryo transfer using a supplemented natural cycle protocol has a similar live birth rate compared to a programmed cycle protocol. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(7):1057–62. doi: 10.1007/s10815-015-0499-x.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    El-Toukhy T, Taylor A, Khalaf Y, Al-Darazi K, Rowell P, Seed P, et al. Pituitary suppression in ultrasound-monitored frozen embryo replacement cycles. A randomised study. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(4):874–9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nekoo EA, Chamani M, Tehrani ES, Rashidi BH, Tanha FD, Kalantari V. Artificial endometrial preparation for frozen-thawed embryo transfer with or without pretreatment with depot gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist in women with regular menses. J Fam Reprod Health. 2014;9(1):1–4.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Simon A, Hurwitz A, Zentner BS, Bdolah Y, Laufer N. Transfer of frozen-thawed embryos in artificially prepared cycles with and without prior gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist suppression: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(1O):2712–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dor J, Rudak E, Davidson A, Levran D, Ben-Rafael Z, Mashiach S. Endocrine and biological factors influencing implantation of human embryos following cryopreservation. Gynecol Endocrinol : Off J Int Soc Gynecol Endocrinol. 1991;5(3):203–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Imthurn B, Macas E, Rosselli M, Keller PJ. Effect of a programmed short-term stimulation protocol on the replacement of cryopreserved embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1996;13(9):709–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Li SJ, Zhang YJ, Chai XS, Nie MF, Zhou YY, Chen JL, et al. Letrozole ovulation induction: an effective option in endometrial preparation for frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;289(3):687–93. doi: 10.1007/s00404-013-3044-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Yu J, Ma Y, Wu Z, Li Y, Tang L, Li Y, et al. Endometrial preparation protocol of the frozen-thawed embryo transfer in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291(1):201–11. doi: 10.1007/s00404-014-3396-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Griesinger G, Weig M, Schroer A, Diedrich K, Kolibianakis EM. Mid-cycle serum levels of endogenous LH are not associated with the likelihood of pregnancy in artificial frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles without pituitary suppression. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(10):2589–93. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dem207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Groenewoud ER, Kollen BJ, Macklon NS, Cohlen BJ. Spontaneous LH surges prior to HCG administration in unstimulated-cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer do not influence pregnancy rates. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24(2):191–6. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.11.003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Brosens J, Verhoeven H, Campo R, Gianaroli L, Gordts S, Hazekamp J, et al. High endometrial aromatase P450 mRNA expression is associated with poor IVF outcome. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(2):352–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Madero S, Rodriguez A, Vassena R, Vernaeve V. Endometrial preparation: effect of estrogen dose and administration route on reproductive outcomes in oocyte donation cycles with fresh embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2016. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew099.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Remohi J, Vidal A, Pellicer A. Oocyte donation in low responders to conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1993;59(6):1208–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    van der Linden M, Buckingham K, Farquhar C, Kremer JA, Metwally M. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;7:CD009154. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009154.pub3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Haddad G, Saguan DA, Maxwell R, Thomas MA. Intramuscular route of progesterone administration increases pregnancy rates during non-downregulated frozen embryo transfer cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24(10):467–70. doi: 10.1007/s10815-007-9168-z.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kaser DJ, Ginsburg ES, Missmer SA, Correia KF, Racowsky C. Intramuscular progesterone versus 8% Crinone vaginal gel for luteal phase support for day 3 cryopreserved embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(6):1464–9. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.08.007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wang Y, He Y, Zhao X, Ji X, Hong Y, Wang Y, et al. Crinone gel for luteal phase support in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a prospective randomized clinical trial in the Chinese population. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0133027. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133027.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Shapiro DB, Pappadakis JA, Ellsworth NM, Hait HI, Nagy ZP. Progesterone replacement with vaginal gel versus i.m. injection: cycle and pregnancy outcomes in IVF patients receiving vitrified blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(8):1706–11. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu121.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Leonard PH, Hokenstad AN, Khan Z, Jensen JR, Stewart EA, Coddington CC. Progesterone support for frozen embryo transfer: intramuscular versus vaginal suppository demonstrates no difference in a cohort. J Reprod Med. 2015;60(3-4):103–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    El-Toukhy T, Coomarasamy A, Khairy M, Sunkara K, Seed P, Khalaf Y, et al. The relationship between endometrial thickness and outcome of medicated frozen embryo replacement cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(4):832–9. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.04.031.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Gingold JA, Lee JA, Rodriguez-Purata J, Whitehouse MC, Sandler B, Grunfeld L, et al. Endometrial pattern, but not endometrial thickness, affects implantation rates in euploid embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(3):620–8. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.05.036. e5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Balaban B, Urman B, Ata B, Isiklar A, Larman MG, Hamilton R, et al. A randomized controlled study of human Day 3 embryo cryopreservation by slow freezing or vitrification: vitrification is associated with higher survival, metabolism and blastocyst formation. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(9):1976–82. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Cercas R, Villas C, Pons I, Brana C, Fernandez-Shaw S. Vitrification can modify embryo cleavage stage after warming. Should we change endometrial preparation? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(12):1363–8. doi: 10.1007/s10815-012-9881-0.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hakan Yarali
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Mehtap Polat
    • 2
  • Sezcan Mumusoglu
    • 1
  • Irem Yarali
    • 2
  • Gurkan Bozdag
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetric and GynecologyHacettepe University School of MedicineAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Anatolia IVF and Women Health CentreAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations