PURPOSE: In the current study, our aim was to demonstrate that EmbryoScope incubation conditions is comparable to standard laboratory incubation circumstances by comparing embryo quality, development and ongoing pregnancy rates between the EmbryoScope (ES) and a standard incubator (SI). We analyzed 478 embryos from 60 couples undergoing oocyte donation were included in the study. METHODS: All embryos retrieved from a patient were randomly distributed in the ES or SI. We calculated blastocyst development rate, blastocyst viability and ongoing pregnancy rate for embryo transfers from ES, SI and mixed (one embryo from the ES and one from the SI). Statistical analysis was conducted by Chi square tests, considering p < 0.05 significant. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the ES and SI from all the parameters evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Thus we concluded that time-lapse monitoring in the EmbryoScope does not impair embryo quality while allowing for morphological, spatial and temporal analysis of embryo development.
PURPOSE: In the current study, our aim was to demonstrate that EmbryoScope incubation conditions is comparable to standard laboratory incubation circumstances by comparing embryo quality, development and ongoing pregnancy rates between the EmbryoScope (ES) and a standard incubator (SI). We analyzed 478 embryos from 60 couples undergoing oocyte donation were included in the study. METHODS: All embryos retrieved from a patient were randomly distributed in the ES or SI. We calculated blastocyst development rate, blastocyst viability and ongoing pregnancy rate for embryo transfers from ES, SI and mixed (one embryo from the ES and one from the SI). Statistical analysis was conducted by Chi square tests, considering p < 0.05 significant. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the ES and SI from all the parameters evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Thus we concluded that time-lapse monitoring in the EmbryoScope does not impair embryo quality while allowing for morphological, spatial and temporal analysis of embryo development.
Authors: Connie C Wong; Kevin E Loewke; Nancy L Bossert; Barry Behr; Christopher J De Jonge; Thomas M Baer; Renee A Reijo Pera Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2010-10-03 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Erdal Budak; Nicolas Garrido; Sergio Reis Soares; Marco Antonio Barreto Melo; Marcos Meseguer; Antonio Pellicer; José Remohí Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2007-02-28 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: M Melo; C E Busso; J Bellver; P Alama; N Garrido; M Meseguer; A Pellicer; J Remohí Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Kirstine Kirkegaard; Johnny Juhl Hindkjaer; Marie Louise Grøndahl; Ulrik Schiøler Kesmodel; Hans Jakob Ingerslev Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Martin D Keltz; Mario Vega; Ido Sirota; Matthew Lederman; Erin L Moshier; Eric Gonzales; Daniel Stein Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 3.412