4.4 Article

Comparison of embryo quality between intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization in sibling oocytes

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 23-28

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-007-9188-8

Keywords

embryo quality; intracytoplasmic sperm injection; in vitro fertilization; sibling oocytes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The aim of the present study was to compare the quality of embryos derived from sibling oocytes by in vitro fertilization (IVF) or ICSI. Methods Consecutive patients with a less than 40% fertilization rate in a previous standard IVF cycle or with relative male factor infertility were recruited for the study. The oocytes retrieved from each patient were divided into two groups for either conventional insemination (group A) or ICSI (group B). Power analysis showed that to detect a 25% difference in the rate of high-quality embryos between the groups with a power of 0.8, at least 1,200 oocytes were needed in each group. Results One hundred seventy-seven patients were included in the study. Group A was comprised of 1,526 oocytes and group B of 1,480 sibling oocytes. As expected, the fertilization rate was significantly higher in group B than group A (67.1 vs. 43.6%, p<0.001). No significant between-group differences were observed in cleavage rate (92.7 and 89.7%, respectively) and the rate of either grade A embryos (22.6 and 23.9%, respectively) or grade A(1) embryos (37.3 and 33.5%, respectively). However, in the subgroup of patients with relative male-factor infertility (n=36), the rate of grade A(1) embryos was significantly higher in the IVF than the ICSI group (46.4 vs. 29.0%, respectively, p=0.02). Conclusions Embryo quality does not seem to be influenced by the mode of fertilization (IVF or ICSI). We assume that embryo quality depends on intrinsic factors of the gametes involved rather than on the fertilization process per se.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available