Endometrial Scratch (Injury): Does Timing Matter?

  • Abigail Bernard, BA School of Medicine, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
  • Katelyn Schumacher, BA School of Medicine, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
  • Courtney Marsh, M.D., M.P.H., FACOG Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
Keywords: IVF, Endometrial Scratch, Endometrial Injury, Assisted Reproductive Technology


Objective: To examine the timing of endometrial scratch in a patient’s menstrual cycle and whether there is an association with subsequent implantation. Materials and methods: This study is a retrospective chart review on women, aged 18-45, seen in a reproductive endocrine clinic seeking conception. Timing of endometrial scratch was defined as proliferative (cycle day 1-9), periovulatory (CD11-16), or secretory (CD19+). All periovulatory biopsies were performed at time of oocyte retrieval in women freezing all oocytes/embryos for future use. Primary outcome of interest was positive beta-hCG within ninety days of the endometrial scratch. Results: Sixty-nine cases of endometrial scratch met the inclusion criteria. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline demographic characteristics between those who received endometrial injury in the three phases. There was no significant difference in frequency of positive beta-hCG within 90 days of endometrial scratch between the patients who received an endometrial scratch in the three phases (proliferative 65.6%, periovulatory 69.6%, secretory 64.3%; p = 0.9332).Conclusion: In contrast to prior studies which showed up to 65% decrease in implantation rate after endometrial scratch performed at time of oocyte retrieval, this study shows no significant difference in implantation when the injury is performed at the time of oocyte retrieval as compared to other phases of the menstrual cycle. Possible explanation may be that we did not perform a scratch if fresh embryo transfer was planned. As endometrial injury is associated with patient discomfort, performing the scratch while under conscious sedation for oocyte retrieval may be desirable in cycles where fresh embryo transfer is not planned. Future studies are needed to assess the validity of these findings.


1. Barash A, Dekel N, Fieldust S, Segal I, Schechtman E, Granot I. Local injury to the endometrium doubles the incidence of successful pregnancies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2003; 79: 1317-22.
2. Lensen S, Osavlyuk D, Armstrong S, Stadelmann C, Hennes A, Napier E, et al. A Randomized Trial of Endometrial Scratching before In Vitro Fertilization. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 325-334.
3. Shohayeb A, El-Khayat W. Does a single endometrial biopsy regimen (S-EBR) improve ICSI outcome in patients with repeated implantation failure? A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012; 164:176–179.
4. Nastri CO, Ferriani RA, Raine-Fenning N, Martins WP. Endometrial scratching performed in the non-transfer cycle and outcome of assisted reproduction: a randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 375–82.
5. Karimzadeh MA, Ayazi Rozbahani M, Tabibnejad N. Endometrial local injury improves the pregnancy rate among recurrent implantation failure patients undergoing in vitro fertilisation/intra cytoplasmic sperm injection: a randomised clinical trial. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 49: 677–80.
6. Baum M, Yerushalmi GM, Maman E, Kedem A, Machtinger R, Hourvitz A, et al. Does local injury to the endometrium before IVF cycle really affect treatment outcome? Results of a randomized placebo controlled trial. Gynecol Endocrinol 2012; 28: 933–936.
7. Karimzade, MA, Oskouian, H, Ahmadi S, Oskouian L. Local injury to the endometrium on the day of oocyte retrieval has a negative impact on implantation in assisted reproductive cycles: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2010; 281:499-503.
How to Cite
Bernard A, Schumacher K, Marsh C. Endometrial Scratch (Injury): Does Timing Matter?. J Fam Reprod Health. 13(2):85-88.
Original Articles