Embryonic development in human oocytes fertilized by split insemination

  • Kim M
  • Kim J
  • Youm H
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the laboratory outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and conventional insemination using sibling oocytes in poor prognosis IVF cycles where ICSI is not indicated. METHODS: Couples undergoing IVF with following conditions were enrolled: history of more than 3 years of unexplained infertility, history of >/=3 failed intrauterine insemination, leukocytospermia or wide variation in semen analysis, poor oocyte quality, or >/=50% of embryos had poor quality in previous IVF cycle(s). Couples with severe male factor requiring ICSI were excluded. Oocytes were randomly assigned to the conventional insemination (conventional group) or ICSI (ICSI group). Fertilization rate (FR), total fertilization failure, and embryonic development at day 3 and day 5 were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 309 mature oocytes from 37 IVF cycles (32 couples) were obtained: 161 were assigned to conventional group and 148 to ICSI group. FR was significantly higher in the ICSI group compared to the conventional group (90.5% vs. 72.7%, P<0.001). Total fertilization failure occurred in only one cycle in conventional group. On day 3, the percentage of cleavage stage embryos was higher in ICSI group however the difference was marginally significant (P=0.055). In 11 cycles in which day 5 culture was attempted, the percentage of blastocyst (per cleaved embryo) was significantly higher in the ICSI group than the conventional group (55.9% vs. 25.9%, P=0.029). CONCLUSION: Higher FR and more blastocyst could be achieved by ICSI in specific circumstances. Fertilization method can be tailored accordingly to improve IVF outcomes.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kim, M. S., Kim, J., Youm, H. W., Park, J. Y., Choi, H. Y., & Jee, B. C. (2015). Embryonic development in human oocytes fertilized by split insemination. Obstetrics & Gynecology Science, 58(3), 217. https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2015.58.3.217

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free