4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Late fertilization of unfertilized human oocytes in in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: Conventional insemination versus ICSI

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
Volume 17, Issue 8, Pages 419-424

Publisher

KLUWER ACADEMIC/PLENUM PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1009409100941

Keywords

conventional IVF; reinsemination; 1-day-old ICSI; 2-day-old ICSI; re-lCSl

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The aim, of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in comparison with conventional reinsemination using fertilization failed oocytes by conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF). Methods: Oocytes were collected from patients of IVF or ICSI cycles. Patients were grouped by fertilization techniques: group I: conventional IVF; group 2: reinsemination after conventional IVF failure; group 3: regular ICSI; group 4: I-day-old ICSI after conventional IVF failure; group 5: 2-day-old ICSI after conventional IVF failure; group 6: re-ICSI after regular ICSI failure. Results: In different insemination groups, normal fertilization rate was higher (P < 0.001) in I-day-old ICSI (47.1%) and 2-day-old ICSI groups (40.0%) than in reinsemination (14.7%) Abnormal fertilization rate was higher (P < 0.05) in re-ICSI group (21.7%) than any other groups (range: 0-8%). Cleavage rate was higher in I-day-old (36.7%) and 2-day-old ICSI groups (36.0%) than in reinsemination (5.3%, P < 0.001) or re-ICSI groups (17.4%, P < 0.05). Pregnancy rare was 27.6% and 20.0% in conventional IVF and regular ICSI groups, respectively. However, I-day-old ICSI (group 4) and 2-day-old ICSI (group 5) were attempted once embryo transfer (ET) but failed pregnancy occurred in each group. Conclusions: In fertilization failure cycles, late ICSI increases the rate of fertilization and embryonic development and may rescue the completely failed attempt of pregnancy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available