Cargando…

Comparison between Cleavage Stage versus Blastocyst Stage Embryo Transfer in an Egyptian Cohort Undergoing in vitro Fertilization: A Possible Role for Laser Assisted Hatching

BACKGROUND: Extended in vitro embryo culture and blastocyst transfer have emerged as essential components of the advanced reproductive technology armamentarium, permitting selection of more advanced embryos considered best suited for transfer. AIM OF STUDY: The aim of this study was to compare betwe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hendawy, Sherif F., Raafat, TA
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Libertas Academica 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3888070/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24453510
http://dx.doi.org/10.4137/CMRH.S7735
_version_ 1782299032188616704
author Hendawy, Sherif F.
Raafat, TA
author_facet Hendawy, Sherif F.
Raafat, TA
author_sort Hendawy, Sherif F.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Extended in vitro embryo culture and blastocyst transfer have emerged as essential components of the advanced reproductive technology armamentarium, permitting selection of more advanced embryos considered best suited for transfer. AIM OF STUDY: The aim of this study was to compare between cleavage stage and blastocyst stage embryo transfer in patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and to assess the role of assisted hatching technique in patients undergoing blastocyst transfer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was carried out on two groups. Group I: 110 patients who underwent 120 cycles of intracytoplasmic sperm injection with day 2–3 embryo transfer—for unexplained infertility or male factor within the previous 3 years. Their data obtained retrospectively from medical records. Group II: 46 age matched infertile female patients undergoing 51 intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles for similar causes. Patients in Group II were further subdivided into 2 equal subgroups; Group IIa (23 patients), which had laser assisted hatching and Group IIb (23 patients), which did not have assisted hatching. All patients had an infertility workup including basal hormonal profile, pelvic ultrasound, hysterosalpingogram and/or laparoscope and semen analysis of the patient’s partner. All patients underwent controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: Using long protocol of ovulation induction. Laser assisted hatching was done for blastocysts of 23 patients. RESULTS: Comparison between both groups as regards the reproductive outcome showed a significant difference in pregnancy and implantation rates, both being higher in group II (P < 0.05) Comparison between both subgroups as regards the reproductive outcome showed a highly significant difference in pregnancy and implantation rates, both being higher in Group IIa (P < 0.01). There was also a significantly higher rate of multiple pregnancies among Group IIa (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Blastocyst transfer is a successful and improved alternative for patients with multiple failed in vitro fertilization attempts, associated with a significant increase in pregnancy and implantation rates. Furthermore, laser assisted hatching increases implantation and clinical pregnancy rates.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3888070
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Libertas Academica
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38880702014-01-22 Comparison between Cleavage Stage versus Blastocyst Stage Embryo Transfer in an Egyptian Cohort Undergoing in vitro Fertilization: A Possible Role for Laser Assisted Hatching Hendawy, Sherif F. Raafat, TA Clin Med Insights Reprod Health Original Research BACKGROUND: Extended in vitro embryo culture and blastocyst transfer have emerged as essential components of the advanced reproductive technology armamentarium, permitting selection of more advanced embryos considered best suited for transfer. AIM OF STUDY: The aim of this study was to compare between cleavage stage and blastocyst stage embryo transfer in patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and to assess the role of assisted hatching technique in patients undergoing blastocyst transfer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was carried out on two groups. Group I: 110 patients who underwent 120 cycles of intracytoplasmic sperm injection with day 2–3 embryo transfer—for unexplained infertility or male factor within the previous 3 years. Their data obtained retrospectively from medical records. Group II: 46 age matched infertile female patients undergoing 51 intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles for similar causes. Patients in Group II were further subdivided into 2 equal subgroups; Group IIa (23 patients), which had laser assisted hatching and Group IIb (23 patients), which did not have assisted hatching. All patients had an infertility workup including basal hormonal profile, pelvic ultrasound, hysterosalpingogram and/or laparoscope and semen analysis of the patient’s partner. All patients underwent controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: Using long protocol of ovulation induction. Laser assisted hatching was done for blastocysts of 23 patients. RESULTS: Comparison between both groups as regards the reproductive outcome showed a significant difference in pregnancy and implantation rates, both being higher in group II (P < 0.05) Comparison between both subgroups as regards the reproductive outcome showed a highly significant difference in pregnancy and implantation rates, both being higher in Group IIa (P < 0.01). There was also a significantly higher rate of multiple pregnancies among Group IIa (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Blastocyst transfer is a successful and improved alternative for patients with multiple failed in vitro fertilization attempts, associated with a significant increase in pregnancy and implantation rates. Furthermore, laser assisted hatching increases implantation and clinical pregnancy rates. Libertas Academica 2011-08-29 /pmc/articles/PMC3888070/ /pubmed/24453510 http://dx.doi.org/10.4137/CMRH.S7735 Text en © 2011 the author(s), publisher and licensee Libertas Academica Ltd. This is an open access article. Unrestricted non-commercial use is permitted provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Hendawy, Sherif F.
Raafat, TA
Comparison between Cleavage Stage versus Blastocyst Stage Embryo Transfer in an Egyptian Cohort Undergoing in vitro Fertilization: A Possible Role for Laser Assisted Hatching
title Comparison between Cleavage Stage versus Blastocyst Stage Embryo Transfer in an Egyptian Cohort Undergoing in vitro Fertilization: A Possible Role for Laser Assisted Hatching
title_full Comparison between Cleavage Stage versus Blastocyst Stage Embryo Transfer in an Egyptian Cohort Undergoing in vitro Fertilization: A Possible Role for Laser Assisted Hatching
title_fullStr Comparison between Cleavage Stage versus Blastocyst Stage Embryo Transfer in an Egyptian Cohort Undergoing in vitro Fertilization: A Possible Role for Laser Assisted Hatching
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between Cleavage Stage versus Blastocyst Stage Embryo Transfer in an Egyptian Cohort Undergoing in vitro Fertilization: A Possible Role for Laser Assisted Hatching
title_short Comparison between Cleavage Stage versus Blastocyst Stage Embryo Transfer in an Egyptian Cohort Undergoing in vitro Fertilization: A Possible Role for Laser Assisted Hatching
title_sort comparison between cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in an egyptian cohort undergoing in vitro fertilization: a possible role for laser assisted hatching
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3888070/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24453510
http://dx.doi.org/10.4137/CMRH.S7735
work_keys_str_mv AT hendawysheriff comparisonbetweencleavagestageversusblastocyststageembryotransferinanegyptiancohortundergoinginvitrofertilizationapossibleroleforlaserassistedhatching
AT raafatta comparisonbetweencleavagestageversusblastocyststageembryotransferinanegyptiancohortundergoinginvitrofertilizationapossibleroleforlaserassistedhatching