4.3 Review

Is preimplantation genetic diagnosis the ideal embryo selection method in aneuploidy screening?

Journal

KAOHSIUNG JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
Volume 30, Issue 10, Pages 491-498

Publisher

ELSEVIER TAIWAN
DOI: 10.1016/j.kjms.2014.05.008

Keywords

Aneuploidy; Chromosomal anomalies; In vitro fertilization; Preimplantation genetic diagnosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To select cytogenetically normal embryos, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) aneuploidy screening (AS) is used in numerous centers around the world. Chromosomal abnormalities lead to developmental problems, implantation failure, and early abortion of embryos. The usefulness of PGD in identifying single-gene diseases, human leukocyte antigen typing, X-linked diseases, and specific genetic diseases is well-known. In this review, preimplantation embryo genetics, PGD research studies, and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology PGD Consortium studies and reports are examined. In addition, criteria for embryo selection, technical aspects of PGD-AS, and potential noninvasive embryo selection methods are described. Indications for PGD and possible causes of discordant PGD results between the centers are discussed. The limitations of fluorescence in situ hybridization, and the advantages of the array comparative genomic hybridization are included in this review. Although PGD-AS for patients of advanced maternal age has been shown to improve in vitro fertilization outcomes in some studies, to our knowledge, there is not sufficient evidence to use advanced maternal age as the sole indication for PGD-AS. PGD-AS might be harmful and may not increase the success rates of in vitro fertilization. At the same time PGD, is not recommended for recurrent implantation failure and unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss. Copyright (C) 2014, Kaohsiung Medical University. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available