ArticleJournal of ovarian research2026
Effect of laser-assisted hatching on ectopic pregnancy after frozen-thawed embryo transfer in patients with a history of ectopic pregnancy: a large cohort study.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAssisted hatching (AH) influences embryo implantation, whereas ectopic pregnancy (EP) is embryo ectopic implantation and AH may influence EP. Patients with EP history are at higher risk of EP resulting from IVF/ICSI (IVF-EP), and this is associated with the number of previous EP. However, the effect of laser-AH on IVF-EP in patients with EP history has not been studied so far, so we investigated the effect and considered possible different effects in populations with different numbers of EP.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included all patients with previous EP history receiving frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles at our center between August 2019 and August 2023. A total of 5129 cycles from 2888 patients were grouped according to AH or not. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the number of previous EP (One-EP and > = 2 EP). Binary regression analysis together with generalized estimating equation (GEE) after inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW) were performed in all cycles, One-EP cycles, and > = 2 EP cycles respectively to clarify the effect of laser-AH. Stratified regression analysis was also performed based on embryo stage.
resultsA total of 1022 cycles were included in the AH group and 4107 cycles were included in the Non-AH group. No statistically significant difference was observed in IVF-EP rate between the two groups (1.4% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.113). In subgroup analyses, AH group had a lower IVF-EP rate than Non-AH group in the One-EP subgroup (1.0% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.028); whereas there was no statistically significant difference in the > = 2 EP subgroup (2.4% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.612). In GEE after IPTW, AH did not influence the IVF-EP rate in the entire population (aOR: 0.888, 95% CI: 0.414–1.904, P = 0.760) and One-EP population (aOR: 0.418, 95% CI: 0.154–1.131, P = 0.086), while increased risk of IVF-EP was observed of AH in > = 2 EP population (aOR: 2.438, 95% CI: 1.509–3.939, P = 0.023). Similar regression results were obtained in cleavage-embryo cycles.
conclusionsLaser-AH had no effect on IVF-EP after FET in patients with EP history. However, laser-AH was associated with an increased risk of IVF-EP in patients with recurrent EP, suggesting that laser-AH warrants caution in this specific population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.