4.7 Article

Blastocyst transfer following intracytoplasmic injection of ejaculated, epididymal or testicular spermatozoa

Journal

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages 125-129

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/16.1.125

Keywords

azoospermia; blastocysts; ICSI; testicular spermatozoa

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent studies indicate a strong paternal influence on embryo development and progression of the embryo to the blastocyst stage. The aim of this study was to compare, during extended culture, the in-vitro development of embryos resulting from intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) of ejaculated spermatozoa (group 1, n = 347), epididymal (group 2, n = 22) or testicular (group 3, n = 18) spermatozoa from obstructive azoospermic and testicular spermatozoa from non-obstructive azoospermic (group 4, n = 31) subjects, Fertilization and blastocyst formation rates were significantly lower in group 4 (P < 0.05), The incidence of expanded and hatching blastocysts was significantly lower in group 4 (P < 0.05). Overall in 93.2% ejaculate ICSI cycles, blastocysts were transferred on day 5, This was significantly higher than the 62% day 5 transfers in the non-obstructive azoospermic group (P < 0.05). Implantation rate per embryo was significantly higher in the ejaculate ICSI group compared with the other groups (P < 0.05). Clinical pregnancy per transfer was similar between groups; however, significantly fewer multiple pregnancies were encountered in the non-obstructive azoospermic group (P < 0.01), Tn conclusion, the source of the spermatozoa, most likely to be indicative of the severity of spermatogenic disorder, affects the rate of blastocyst formation and blastocyst implantation. Spermatozoa from non-obstructive azoospermic subjects, when utilized for ICSI, result in embryos that progress to the blastocyst stage at a lower and slower rate and implant less efficiently.

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