Kenichiro Hiraoka1, Seiji Kitamura2. 1. Kameda Medical Center, 929 Higashi-cho, Kamogawa-shi, Chiba, 296-8602, Japan. hiraoka@oct.email.ne.jp. 2. Ogikubo Hospital Niji Clinic, 4-32-2-8F9F Ogikubo, Suginami-ku, Tokyo, 167-0051, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purposes of the present study are to assess the clinical efficiency of Piezo-intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and to improve the Piezo-ICSI method for human oocytes. METHODS: We examined three ICSI methods to determine their clinical efficiency by comparing the survival, fertilization, good-quality day-3 embryo, pregnancy, and live birth rates. The three ICSI methods tested were conventional ICSI (CI) (using beveled spiked micropipettes with a wall thickness of 1 μm), conventional Piezo-ICSI (CPI) (using flat-tipped micropipettes with a wall thickness of 0.925 μm), and improved Piezo-ICSI (IPI) (using flat-tipped micropipettes with a wall thickness of 0.625 μm). We collectively investigated 2020 mature oocytes retrieved from 437 patients between October 2010 and January 2014. RESULTS: The survival rates after CI, CPI, and IPI were 90, 95, and 99 %, respectively. The fertilization rates after CI, CPI, and IPI were 68, 75, and 89 %, respectively. The good-quality day-3 embryo rates after CI, CPI, and IPI were 37, 43, and 55 %, respectively. The pregnancy rates after the transfer of good-quality day-3 embryo of CI, CPI, and IPI were 19, 21, and 31 %, respectively. The live birth rates of CI, CPI, and IPI were 15, 16, and 25 %, respectively. Significantly higher survival, fertilization, good-quality day-3 embryo, pregnancy, and live birth rates were obtained using IPI. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the IPI to the CI and CPI, the results revealed that the Piezo-ICSI using flat-tipped micropipettes with a wall thickness of 0.625 μm significantly improves survival, fertilization, good-quality day-3 embryo, pregnancy, and live birth rates.
PURPOSE: The purposes of the present study are to assess the clinical efficiency of Piezo-intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and to improve the Piezo-ICSI method for human oocytes. METHODS: We examined three ICSI methods to determine their clinical efficiency by comparing the survival, fertilization, good-quality day-3 embryo, pregnancy, and live birth rates. The three ICSI methods tested were conventional ICSI (CI) (using beveled spiked micropipettes with a wall thickness of 1 μm), conventional Piezo-ICSI (CPI) (using flat-tipped micropipettes with a wall thickness of 0.925 μm), and improved Piezo-ICSI (IPI) (using flat-tipped micropipettes with a wall thickness of 0.625 μm). We collectively investigated 2020 mature oocytes retrieved from 437 patients between October 2010 and January 2014. RESULTS: The survival rates after CI, CPI, and IPI were 90, 95, and 99 %, respectively. The fertilization rates after CI, CPI, and IPI were 68, 75, and 89 %, respectively. The good-quality day-3 embryo rates after CI, CPI, and IPI were 37, 43, and 55 %, respectively. The pregnancy rates after the transfer of good-quality day-3 embryo of CI, CPI, and IPI were 19, 21, and 31 %, respectively. The live birth rates of CI, CPI, and IPI were 15, 16, and 25 %, respectively. Significantly higher survival, fertilization, good-quality day-3 embryo, pregnancy, and live birth rates were obtained using IPI. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the IPI to the CI and CPI, the results revealed that the Piezo-ICSI using flat-tipped micropipettes with a wall thickness of 0.625 μm significantly improves survival, fertilization, good-quality day-3 embryo, pregnancy, and live birth rates.
Authors: J M Dumoulin; E Coonen; M Bras; J M Bergers-Janssen; R C Ignoul-Vanvuchelen; L C van Wissen ; J P Geraedts; J L Evers Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: A De Vos; L Van Landuyt; H Van Ranst; A Vandermonde; V D'Haese; J Sterckx; P Haentjens; P Devroey; J Van der Elst Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2008-06-06 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Serafín Pérez-Cerezales; Ricardo Laguna-Barraza; Alejandro Chacón de Castro; María Jesús Sánchez-Calabuig; Esther Cano-Oliva; Francisco Javier de Castro-Pita; Luis Montoro-Buils; Eva Pericuesta; Raúl Fernández-González; Alfonso Gutiérrez-Adán Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Haoqing Wang; Peyman Obeidy; Zihao Wang; Yunduo Zhao; Yao Wang; Qian Peter Su; Charles D Cox; Lining Arnold Ju Journal: Eur Biophys J Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 1.733