4.4 Article

Early rescue oocyte activation for activation-impaired oocytes with no second polar body extrusion after intracytoplasmic sperm injection

期刊

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
卷 38, 期 5, 页码 1061-1068

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02089-1

关键词

Artificial oocyte activation; Inactivated oocytes; Calcium ionophore; Intracytoplasmic sperm injection; Second polar body

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study suggests that early ROA after ICSI is effective in rescuing unfertilized oocytes, with a higher normal fertilization rate compared to non-ROA oocytes. However, the blastocyst development rate is lower, while the implantation rate is similar to spontaneously activated oocytes.
Purpose When rescue artificial oocyte activation (ROA) is performed on the day after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) or later, embryonic development is poor and seldom results in live births. The efficacy of an early ROA after ICSI is unclear. Is early ROA effective in rescuing unfertilized oocytes that have not undergone second polar body extrusion several hours after ICSI? Methods We performed retrospective cohort study between October 2016 and September 2019, targeting 2891 oocytes in 843 cycles when ICSI was performed. We performed ROA with calcium ionophore on 395 of the 475 oocytes with no second polar extrusion 2.5-6 h after ICSI. Results The normal fertilization rate of ROA oocytes was significantly higher than non-ROA oocytes (65.8% vs 6.7%, P < 0.001). The blastocyst development rate in ROA oocytes was significantly lower than spontaneously activated oocytes (48.9% vs 67.2%, P < 0.001). The ROA oocyte implantation rate did not significantly differ from the spontaneously activated oocytes (36.0% vs 41.2%). We observed no differences in the implantation rates and blastocyst development rates over the 2.5-6 h from ICSI until ROA. Conclusion Early ROA is effective, and the optimal timing appears to be 2.5-6 h after ICSI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据