4.6 Article

Comparison of embryo implantation potential between time-lapse incubators and standard incubators: a randomized controlled study

期刊

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
卷 45, 期 5, 页码 858-866

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.06.0171472-6483

关键词

Embryo culture; Implantation rate; Live birth; Static assessment; Time-lapse technology

资金

  1. Merck Serono Co. Ltd. China, an affiliate of Merch KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany [MS200497_002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that using a time-lapse incubator for embryo culture and assessment led to a significantly higher number of successfully implanted embryos in the first transfer cycle and a higher implantation rate compared to using a standard incubator with static assessment. This suggests that time-lapse technology may have potential clinical benefits in assisted reproduction.
Research question: What are the potential clinical benefits of embryo culture and assessment in a time-lapse incubator compared with a standard incubator using static assessment? Design: This large multicentre, single-blinded, randomized controlled study included 1224 participants randomly assigned (1:1) to the time-lapse or standard incubator group. In all patients one or two embryos were transferred on day 3. The primary outcome was the implantation rate in the first embryo transfer cycle. Secondary outcomes included the cumulative implantation rate, live birth rate in the first embryo transfer cycle and cumulative live birth rate. Results: Among 1224 participants recruited, 1182 underwent embryo transfer. The number of successfully implanted embryos in the first transfer cycle was significantly higher in the time-lapse incubator group (time-lapse group: 52.35%, standard incubator group: 47.11%, P = 0.014). The implantation rate in the first embryo transfer cycle was still significantly higher in the time-lapse group than the standard incubator group after adjusting for age, body mass

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

4.6
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