Jenna Lammers1,2,3, Arnaud Reignier1,2,4,3, Carole Splingart1,2,3, Aurore Catteau1, Laurent David2,5,6,4,3, Paul Barriere1,2,4,3, Thomas Freour7,8,9,10,11. 1. Service de Médecine et Biologie de la Reproduction, CHU de Nantes, Nantes, 44093, France. 2. INSERM UMR 1064, ITERT, Nantes, France. 3. ITUN, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France. 4. UFR Médecine, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France. 5. INSERM UMS 016, SFR Santé, iPSC Core Facility, Nantes, France. 6. CNRS UMS 3556, SFR Santé, iPS Core Facility, Nantes, France. 7. Service de Médecine et Biologie de la Reproduction, CHU de Nantes, Nantes, 44093, France. thomas.freour@chu-nantes.fr. 8. INSERM UMR 1064, ITERT, Nantes, France. thomas.freour@chu-nantes.fr. 9. UFR Médecine, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France. thomas.freour@chu-nantes.fr. 10. ITUN, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France. thomas.freour@chu-nantes.fr. 11. Clínica EUGIN, 08029, Barcelona, Spain. thomas.freour@chu-nantes.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to use time-lapse in order to evaluate the impact of sperm origin (fresh ejaculate or surgically retrieved) on embryo morphokinetic parameters and clinical outcome in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. METHODS: This retrospective monocentric study was conducted in 485 unselected couples undergoing 604 ICSI cycles with embryo culture in the Embryoscope®. Among them, 445 couples underwent ICSI cycle with fresh ejaculated sperm and 40 with surgically retrieved sperm (26 with testicular sperm and 14 with epididymal sperm). Embryo morphokinetic parameters and clinical cycle outcome were compared between fresh ejaculated sperm and surgically retrieved sperm. A subgroup analysis was also conducted between testicular and epididymal sperm ICSI cycles. RESULTS: Clinical outcome was comparable between groups according to sperm origin. Although most early morphokinetic parameters were comparable between ejaculated and surgical sperm groups, a few parameters were significantly different between both groups, but with a considerable overlap in their distribution. Late cellular events occurred significantly later in the surgical sperm group than in the ejaculated sperm group. CONCLUSIONS: Morphokinetic analysis did not allow us to identify clinically relevant differences between fresh ejaculate and surgically retrieved sperm groups. Further studies are needed, especially concerning the relationship between sperm origin and late morphokinetic parameters, such as blastocyst development.
PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to use time-lapse in order to evaluate the impact of sperm origin (fresh ejaculate or surgically retrieved) on embryo morphokinetic parameters and clinical outcome in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. METHODS: This retrospective monocentric study was conducted in 485 unselected couples undergoing 604 ICSI cycles with embryo culture in the Embryoscope®. Among them, 445 couples underwent ICSI cycle with fresh ejaculated sperm and 40 with surgically retrieved sperm (26 with testicular sperm and 14 with epididymal sperm). Embryo morphokinetic parameters and clinical cycle outcome were compared between fresh ejaculated sperm and surgically retrieved sperm. A subgroup analysis was also conducted between testicular and epididymal sperm ICSI cycles. RESULTS: Clinical outcome was comparable between groups according to sperm origin. Although most early morphokinetic parameters were comparable between ejaculated and surgical sperm groups, a few parameters were significantly different between both groups, but with a considerable overlap in their distribution. Late cellular events occurred significantly later in the surgical sperm group than in the ejaculated sperm group. CONCLUSIONS: Morphokinetic analysis did not allow us to identify clinically relevant differences between fresh ejaculate and surgically retrieved sperm groups. Further studies are needed, especially concerning the relationship between sperm origin and late morphokinetic parameters, such as blastocyst development.
Authors: N Amirjannati; H Heidari-Vala; M A Akhondi; S H Hosseini Jadda; K Kamali; M R Sadeghi Journal: Andrologia Date: 2011-11-12 Impact factor: 2.775
Authors: Stephen J Bromage; Debbie A Falconer; Brian A Lieberman; Vijay Sangar; Stephen R Payne Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-09-05 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Kristin A Bendikson; Queenie V Neri; Takumi Takeuchi; Marco Toschi; Peter N Schlegel; Zev Rosenwaks; Gianpiero D Palermo Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-07-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Goedele Paternot; Alex M Wetzels; Fabienne Thonon; Anne Vansteenbrugge; Dorien Willemen; Johanna Devroe; Sophie Debrock; Thomas M D'Hooghe; Carl Spiessens Journal: Reprod Biol Endocrinol Date: 2011-09-15 Impact factor: 5.211
Authors: Susanna Apter; Thomas Ebner; Thomas Freour; Yves Guns; Borut Kovacic; Nathalie Le Clef; Monica Marques; Marcos Meseguer; Debbie Montjean; Ioannis Sfontouris; Roger Sturmey; Giovanni Coticchio Journal: Hum Reprod Open Date: 2020-03-19
Authors: E S van Marion; J P Speksnijder; J Hoek; W P A Boellaard; M Dinkelman-Smit; E A Chavli; R P M Steegers-Theunissen; J S E Laven; E B Baart Journal: Biol Reprod Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 4.285