Literature DB >> 24515907

Limitations of embryo selection methods.

Kai Mee Wong1, Sjoerd Repping1, Sebastiaan Mastenbroek1.   

Abstract

In in vitro fertilization (IVF), the selection of embryos for transfer is generally based on the morphology of the available embryos. However, not all embryos with good morphology implant and on average only one in four treatments are successful. This has driven a quest for alternative selection methods. The best known alternative selection method is preimplantation genetic screening (PGS), which has been used for over a decade before it was shown to be inferior to morphological selection. Now, new forms of PGS (performing biopsy at another stage of development and new methods for analysis) are emerging, just like alternative noninvasive embryo selection methods. However, the concept that better selection will lead to improved IVF results is not so certain anymore. Evidence is accumulating that all available embryos in an IVF cycle can be cryopreserved and transferred in subsequent cycles without impairing pregnancy rates or maybe even with an improvement in pregnancy rates. Embryo selection will then no longer be able to improve the live birth rate in IVF; it could even lower the live birth rate. Embryo selection will only be able to improve the time to pregnancy, if embryos with the highest implantation potential are transferred first. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24515907     DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1363554

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Reprod Med        ISSN: 1526-4564            Impact factor:   1.303


  4 in total

Review 1.  Next-generation molecular diagnosis: single-cell sequencing from bench to bedside.

Authors:  Wanjun Zhu; Xiao-Yan Zhang; Sadie L Marjani; Jialing Zhang; Wengeng Zhang; Shixiu Wu; Xinghua Pan
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 9.261

2.  Combined noninvasive metabolic and spindle imaging as potential tools for embryo and oocyte assessment.

Authors:  Tim Sanchez; Marta Venturas; S Ali Aghvami; Xingbo Yang; Seth Fraden; Denny Sakkas; Daniel J Needleman
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 6.918

3.  Optical imaging detects metabolic signatures associated with oocyte quality†.

Authors:  Tiffany C Y Tan; Hannah M Brown; Jeremy G Thompson; Sanam Mustafa; Kylie R Dunning
Journal:  Biol Reprod       Date:  2022-10-11       Impact factor: 4.161

Review 4.  Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: what technology should you use and what are the differences?

Authors:  Paul R Brezina; Raymond Anchan; William G Kearns
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 3.357

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.