4.1 Article

Relationship of polar bodies morphology to embryo quality and pregnancy outcome

Journal

ZYGOTE
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 401-407

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0967199415000325

Keywords

Embryo quality; Implantation rate; Polar body morphology; Pregnancy rate; Zygote competence

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81471511, 81270753, 81370758]
  2. Personnel Training Plan of The Health Care System of Beijing [2013-3-021, 2013-2-009]
  3. Cooperation Project of Basic Research, Clinical Application of Capital Medical University [13JL11]
  4. Project of Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital for Young Scientists [YQ2014-12]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to explore whether the morphology of polar bodies (PBs) estimated at 16-18 h after insemination can be used as an additional marker for predicting human embryo quality or pregnancy outcome. The data from 355 patients who received standard in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation were recruited. Normal fertilized 3048 zygotes from 382 cycles were divided into two groups, PBs intact or fragmented, according to the morphology of PBs assessed at 16-18 h after insemination. Embryo quality and pregnancy outcome were compared between the two groups. It was shown that the day 3 (D3) good embryo rate, good quality blastocyst rate and available embryo rate of the PBs intact group were all significantly higher than that of the corresponding fragmented groups. However, no significant differences in pregnancy rate (PR) or implantation rate (IR) were observed between the intact and fragmented groups. Although PBs morphology estimated at 16-18 h after insemination had little effect on PR or IR in fresh embryo transfer cycles, a better embryo quality can be achieved in the PB-intact group, which is valuable for embryo selection.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available