4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Clinical evaluation of the efficiency of an oocyte donation program using egg cryo-banking

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 92, 期 2, 页码 520-526

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.06.005

关键词

Oocyte; cryopreservation; vitrification; donation; fertilization; embryo; implantation; pregnancy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the efficiency of oocyte donation cycles using egg cryo-banking. Design: Study conditions for vitrified/warmed oocytes for 20 non-autologous recipients (from 10 donors) were set prospectively, and outcomes of it were later compared retrospectively to nine fresh donations cycles. Setting: Private assisted reproductive technology program. Patient(s): Ten donors and 20 infertile recipients. Intervention(s): Oocytes were vitrified 3 to 4 hours after collection and cryo-stored. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection was performed 3 hours after warming, and embryos were in vitro cultured for 5 days. Two or three blastocysts were transferred per patient. Main Outcome Measure(s): Oocyte survival, fertilization, development, clinical pregnancy, and implantation rates. Result(s): A total of 153 oocytes were warmed and 134 survived. A total of 117 fertilized and 68% developed to blastocyst stage. A total of 47 embryos were transferred (2.35 embryos per recipient) and 26 implanted. Fifteen patients achieved ongoing pregnancies initially, and two additional pregnancies were obtained after transfer of supernumerary vitrified/warmed embryos. Nine of the 10 donors from the current study had previous fresh donations cycles from where seven clinical pregnancies were established in nine recipients, providing the base for comparison. Conclusion(s): Oocyte donation using vitrified/warmed oocytes can provide high pregnancy and implantation rates, and thus can be considered as efficient treatment procedure with additional benefits to recipients. (Fertil Steril (R) 2009;92:520-6. (C) 2009 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

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

4.7
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