
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>Abstract To compare the patients’ outcomes of Asherman syndrome who underwent uterine adhesiolysis in luteal phase or follicular phase. A retrospective cohort study. A tertiary hospital in China. Four hundred sixty-four women suffered intrauterine adhesion who underwent monopolar adhesiolysis from March 2014 to March 2017 were analyzed. One hundred seventy-eight patients underwent operations in follicular phase (OFP) and 286 underwent operations in luteal phase (OLP). Hormone therapy was accompanied with an intrauterine device and a second-look hysteroscopy was performed postoperatively. Endometrial thickness in women was analyzed by a transvaginal 3-dimensional ultrasound examination. Re-adhesion was confirmed by a second-look hysteroscopy 3 months after hysteroscopic adhesiolysis. Pregnancy rate was acquired by questionnaires 3 months after a second-look hysteroscopy. OLP has advantages with thicker luteal endometrium (P = .001), higher pregnancy rates (P < .001), and lower re-adhesion rates (P = 0015) compared to these values of OFP. For Asherman syndrome, our study showed that OLP is more feasible than OFP in intrauterine adhesiolysis.
5600, Adult, China, Time Factors, Hormone Replacement Therapy, Uterus, Tissue Adhesions, Gynatresia, Hysteroscopy, Luteal Phase, Cohort Studies, Tertiary Care Centers, Follicular Phase, Humans, Female, Intrauterine Devices, Retrospective Studies
5600, Adult, China, Time Factors, Hormone Replacement Therapy, Uterus, Tissue Adhesions, Gynatresia, Hysteroscopy, Luteal Phase, Cohort Studies, Tertiary Care Centers, Follicular Phase, Humans, Female, Intrauterine Devices, Retrospective Studies
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 3 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
