4.6 Article

Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection improves development and quality of preimplantation embryos in teratozoospermia patients

Journal

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
Volume 25, Issue 2, Pages 168-179

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.03.011

Keywords

blastomere viability; IMSI; paternal effect; pronuclear morphology; teratozoospermia; vacuole

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This prospective randomized study investigated whether intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) outcome can be improved with sperm preselection under x6000 magnification and intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI) in patients with teratozoospermia and characterized embryo development and quality regarding sperm morphology and presence of head vacuoles. Couples with isolated teratozoospermia were divided into two groups: IMSI group (n = 52) and ICSI group (n = 70) and fertilization, blastocyst and clinical pregnancy rates were compared. Oocytes from 30 randomly chosen patients from the IMSI group were injected with spermatozoa that had been previously classified under x6000 magnification into four classes according to the number and size of vacuoles in the head and then cultured separately. Pronuclear morphology, embryo development and blastomere viability were estimated to investigate the influence of sperm morphology, especially vacuoles, on embryo developmental capacity. A significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate was achieved in the IMSI group compared with the ICSI group (48% versus 24%, P < 0.05). Fertilization with spermatozoa without head vacuoles yielded higher number of morphologically normal zygotes, higher blastocyst rate and smaller proportion of arrested embryos than spermatozoa with vacuoles and other head defects. IMSI is a method of choice in patients with teratozoospermia. (C) 2012, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available