Corsan G H, Kemmann E, Bohrer M, Blotner M, Smilow P, Shelden R
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick 08093.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Jan;166(1 Pt 1):41-6. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(92)91826-v.
It has been suggested that the chronologic date of an endometrial biopsy performed to evaluate luteal adequacy should be based on the date of the luteinizing hormone surge rather than the date of the next menstrual period. Sixty-four infertile women used a urinary luteinizing hormone immunoassay to identify the luteinizing hormone surge; timed serum progesterone level tests and an endometrial biopsy were then performed. An out-of-phase endometrium was identified in 26.6% of cycles dated traditionally and 28.1% of cycles dated from the luteinizing hormone surge. No relationship was identified between progesterone levels and endometrial biopsy results when the next menstrual period was used. When the luteinizing hormone surge was used no progesterone cutoff value could be identified that would reliably distinguish between in-phase and out-of-phase cycles. Use of a urinary luteinizing hormone immunoassay offers no advantage over the next menstrual period and does not lead to better agreement between histologic and chronologic dating.
有人提出，为评估黄体功能是否充足而进行的子宫内膜活检的时间日期应基于促黄体生成素高峰的日期，而非下次月经的日期。64名不孕女性使用尿促黄体生成素免疫测定法来确定促黄体生成素高峰；随后进行定时血清孕酮水平检测和子宫内膜活检。在按照传统方法确定日期的周期中，26.6%出现子宫内膜不同步，而在根据促黄体生成素高峰确定日期的周期中，28.1%出现子宫内膜不同步。当以下次月经日期为准时，未发现孕酮水平与子宫内膜活检结果之间存在关联。当以促黄体生成素高峰为准时，无法确定能可靠区分同步和不同步周期的孕酮临界值。使用尿促黄体生成素免疫测定法相比下次月经日期并无优势，也无法使组织学日期和时间日期之间达成更好的一致性。
