Articles Tập 67 Số CĐ1-NCKH 27/01/2026

CLINICAL AND PARACLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PATIENTS WITH RECURRENT REPRODUCTIVE FAILURE (RPL&RIF) UNDERGOING HYSTEROSCOPY

Nguyen Dinh Dong1,2,3,4, Nguyen Thi Binh5,6, Bui Thanh Thuy5,6
1 Hanoi Medical University
2 The Hanoi French Hospital
3 Trường Đại học Y Hà Nội
4 Bệnh viện Đa khoa Việt Pháp Hà Nội
5 Thai Nguyen University of Medicine and Pharmacy
6 Trường Đại học Y Dược, Đại học Thái Nguyên
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v67iCD1.4288
12 Views
9 Downloads
Abstract

Objective: To describe the clinical and paraclinical characteristics of patients with recurrent pregnancy loss and recurrent implantation failure undergoing hysteroscopy at The Hanoi French Hospital from October 2023 to October 2024.

Method: A prospective descriptive study including women in couples with recurrent miscarriage (before 12 weeks) of two or more episodes; women in couples with infertility who had undergone embryo transfer and were undergoing in vitro fertilization.

Results: Most patients with recurrent reproductive failure were under 35 years old (79.2%), with no statistically significant difference between the recurrent pregnancy loss and repeated implantation failure groups (84.1% vs 68.8%, p = 0.078). In the recurrent pregnancy loss group, 40.6% of patients experienced four or more consecutive miscarriages. In contrast, 31.5% of patients in the repeated implantation failure group had never had a miscarriage. In the repeated implantation failure group, the mean duration of infertility was 6.13 years, and the average number of failed embryo transfers was 3.5. The rate of hysteroscopy was low in the recurrent pregnancy loss group (17.3%), whereas this rate was considerably higher in the repeated implantation failure group (50%). In the recurrent pregnancy loss group, most patients had an endometrial thickness < 7 mm (22%), while the majority of repeated implantation failure patients had an endometrial thickness within the normal range (8-14 mm). In both the recurrent pregnancy loss and repeated implantation failure groups, endometrial morphology on ultrasound was mostly irregular, characterized by scattered small hypoechoic areas or hyperechoic folds.

Conclusion: The recurrent pregnancy loss and repeated implantation failure groups showed several differences in reproductive characteristics and endometrial features, but both had a high rate of irregular endometrial morphology on ultrasound. The recurrent pregnancy loss group exhibited higher rates of recurrent miscarriage and thin endometrium, whereas the repeated implantation failure group had a longer duration of infertility and more failed embryo transfers. These findings emphasize the need for thorough evaluation of the endometrium and uterine cavity in both groups, particularly the increased use of hysteroscopy to detect abnormalities related to implantation failure and recurrent pregnancy loss.

References
[1]
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Evaluation and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 2012, 98 (5): 1103-1111. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.06.048. Google Scholar
[2]
ESHRE Guideline Group on RPL, R.B, Christiansen O.B et al. ESHRE guideline: recurrent pregnancy loss: an update in 2022. Human Reproduction Open, 2023, 2023 (1): hoad002. doi:10.1093/hropen/hoad002. Google Scholar
[3]
Ma J, Gao W, Li D. Recurrent implantation failure: A comprehensive summary from etiology to treatment. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 2023, 13: 1061766. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1061766. Google Scholar
[4]
Zeyneloglu H.B, Onalan G. Remedies for recurrent implantation failure. Semin Reprod Med, 2014, 32: 297-305. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1375182. Google Scholar
[5]
Franasiak J.M, Alecsandru D et al. A review of the pathophysiology of recurrent implantation failure. Fertil Steril, 2021, 116: 1436-1448. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.09.014. Google Scholar
[6]
Pabuccu E.G, Yalçın I et al. Impact of office hysteroscopy in repeated implantation failure: Experience of a single center. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc, 2016, 17 (4): 197-200. doi:10.5152/jtgga.2016.16166. Google Scholar
[7]
Vũ Thị Ngọc và cộng sự. Kết quả soi buồng tử cung ngoại trú trên bệnh nhân thất bại làm tổ liên tiếp tại Bệnh viện Đa khoa Tâm Anh. Tạp chí Y học Việt Nam, 2023, 524 (2): 16-20. doi:10.51298/vmj.v524i2.4814. Google Scholar
[8]
El-Toukhy T, Campo R et al. Hysteroscopy in recurrent in-vitro fertilisation failure (TROPHY): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2016, 387 (10038): 2614-2621. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00258-0. Google Scholar
[9]
Lê Hoàng. Nhận xét về soi buồng tử cung ở bệnh nhân vô sinh tại Bệnh viện Phụ Sản Trung ương năm 2008. Hội Hỗ trợ Sinh sản và Vô sinh thành phố Hồ Chí Minh. https://hosrem.org.vn/nhan-xet-ve-soi-buong-tu-cung-o-benh-nhan-vo-sinh-tai-benh-vien-pstw-nam-2008-id364.html. Google Scholar
[10]
Gao M, Sun Y et al. Hysteroscopy prior to repeat embryo transfer may improve pregnancy outcomes for asymptomatic women with repeated implantation failure. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2015, 41 (10): 1569-1576. doi: 10.1111/jog.12773. Google Scholar
[11]
Nguyễn Quảng Bắc, Đặng Quang Hùng. Nhận xét kết quả soi buồng tử cung bệnh nhân vô sinh tại Bệnh viện Phụ Sản Trung ương. Tạp chí Y học Việt Nam, 2023, 525 (2): 179-182. doi: 10.51298/vmj.v525i2.5217. Google Scholar