Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Reproductive outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in good-prognosis patients who electively decided to limit the number of oocytes used for microinjection: a two-center comparative study.

Ginekologia Polska 2015 October
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection/embryo transfer (ICSI/ET) between two IVF centers with similar pregnancy rates and embryo transfer policy but with two different approaches to good-prognosis patients who intentionally chose to limit the number of oocytes used for ICSI.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: It was a retrospective two-center comparative study A total of 218 patients after successful retrieval of >10 mature oocytes following ovarian hyperstimulation were included in the study The number of fertilized oocytes used during ICSI/ET was limited to 6 and 10 in 108 and 110 patients of the Centre for Reproductive Medicine KRIOBANK and VitroLive Fertility Clinic, respectively

RESULTS: No significant differences in the implantation rate (29.93% vs. 29.54%; p=0.94) and ongoing pregnancy rate (39.81% vs. 45.45%, p=0.40) were observed between patients who electively fertilized 6 as compared to 10 oocytes, respectively However in patients who deliberately limited the number of fertilized oocytes to 6 the following were observed: i) significantly fewer embryos available for ET (2.89 ± 1.23 vs. 3.77 ± 1.48, p<0.0 1); ii) considerably lower number of frozen embryos per cycle (1.05 ± 1.30 vs. 2.00 ± 1.67, p<0.01), and iii) lower rates of cycles with embryo cryopreservation (4 7.22% vs. 72.72%, p<0.01) as compared to patients with 10 fertilized oocytes.

CONCLUSIONS: Elective fertilization of 6 vs. 10 oocytes does not adversely affect fresh ICSI/ET outcome in normal-responding patients. Restricted number of oocytes used for ICSI/ET may be a favorable alternative for couples who do not wish to cryopreserve surplus human embryos.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app