4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Tracking of oocyte dysmorphisms for ICSI patients may prove relevant to the outcome in subsequent patient cycles

Journal

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
Volume 16, Issue 10, Pages 2118-2123

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/16.10.2118

Keywords

cytoplasm; ICSI outcome; implantation rates; oocytes dysmorphisms; organelle clustering

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: We determined whether oocyte dysmorphisms, especially repetition of specific dysmorphisms from cycle to cycle, had a prognostic impact on intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) outcome. METHODS: ICSI patients (n = 67) were grouped as follows: group 1 > 50% phenotypically dysmorphic oocytes per cohort (cytoplasmic and extra-cytoplasmic dysmorphisms) with no repetition of a specific dysmorphism from cycle one to cycle two (36 cycles and 274 oocytes); group 2 > 50% dysmorphic oocytes per cohort and repetition of the same dysmorphism from cycle one to cycle two (32 cycles and 313 oocytes); group 3 (control) < 30% dysmorphic oocytes (33 cycles and 378 oocytes). RESULTS: In group 2 (repetitive), 47% of oocytes were observed to have organelle clustering versus 20.5% in group I and 17.3% in group 3 (P < 0.001). There was no difference between the groups in fertilization rates, cleavage rates or embryo quality. Embryos derived from normal oocytes were transferred in each group (57, 33 and 72% respectively). The clinical pregnancy and implantation rates in group 2 (3.1 and 1.7% respectively) were lower (P < 0.01, P = 0.005) than both group 1 (28 and 15% respectively) and group 3 (45.5 and 26.5% respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The low implantation rate in group 2, even though 33% of transferred embryos were derived from morphologically normal oocytes, suggests that repetitive organelle clustering may be associated with an underlying adverse factor affecting the entire follicular cohort.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available