4.4 Article

A prospective, randomized comparison of two commercial media for ICSI and embryo culture

期刊

出版社

KLUWER ACADEMIC/PLENUM PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1016670422408

关键词

culture medium; embryo implantation; ICSI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this prospective, randomized study was to compare the results obtained in ICSI with two culture media; P-1 (Irvine Scientific) and IVF-50 (Scandinavian IVF Science). Methods: A total of 182 patients undergoing ICSI treatment were randomly included in this study and divided in two groups: Group 1: P-1 medium (n = 91) or Group II: IVF-50 medium (n = 91). All the embryos were transferred on the second day. Results: Patient age did not differ (p =.29) between Group I (34.8:\+/-4.8) and Group II (34.0 +/-4.5). The number of oocytes retrieved from Group I(10.6 +/-6.7) was also similar (p =.49) to that retrieved from Group II (11.1 +/-6.4). In addition, there was no difference (p =.25) in the number of oocytes retrieved at metaphase II between Group I (7.9 +/-4.6) and Group II (8.7 +/-4.6). Normal fertilization rates, abnormal fertilization rates, and cleavage rates were similar (p =.62, p =.48, and p =.9, respectively) between Group I (68.4 +/- 23.3%, 6.7 +/- 10.3%, and 98.7 +/-4.6%) and Group II (65.3 +/- 26.2%, 9.0 +/- 13.8%, and 98.9 +/-3.9%, respectively). The embryo score was also similar (p =.62) for both groups (Group I: 31.9 +/- 14.0 and Group II.: 33.4 +/- 15.8). There was no difference in the number of embryos transferred (p =.69) between Group I (2.8 +/-1.0) and Group II(2.8 +/-1.1). In addition, pregnancy, rates/puncture, pregnancy rates/transfer; implantation rates, and abortion rates there also similar for Group I (36.2%, 37.0%, 17.4%, acrd 12.1%, respectively) and Group II (31.8%, 33.7%, 15.8%, and 10.3%, respectively) (p =.64, p =.75, p =.72, and p = 1.0, respectively). Conclusions: There were no differences in the results obtained with culture media P-1 (Irvine Scientific) and IVF-50 (Scandinavian IVF Science) for ICSI and embryo culture.

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