Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:05:01.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Section IV - Embryology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2021

Edited by
Roy Homburg ,
Adam H. Balen  and
Robert F. Casper
Roy Homburg
Affiliation:
Homerton University Hospital, London
Adam H. Balen
Affiliation:
Leeds Centre for Reproductive Medicine
Robert F. Casper
Affiliation:
Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
50 Big Debates in Reproductive Medicine , pp. 126 - 155
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Yovich, JL, Craft, IL. Founding pioneers of IVF: Independent innovative researchers generating livebirths within 4 years of the first birth. Reprod Biol. 2018;18:317–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Neill, CL, Chow, S, Rosenwaks, Z, Palermo, GD. Development of ICSI. Reproduction. 2018;156:F51–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yovich, JL, Conceicao, JL, Marjanovich, N, et al. An ICSI rate of 90% minimizes complete failed fertilization and provides satisfactory implantation rates without elevating fetal abnormalities. Reprod Biol. 2018;18:301–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simerly, CR, Takahashi, D, Jacoby, E, et al. Fertilization and cleavage axis differ in primates conceived by conventional (IVF) versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Sci Rep. 2019;9:15282. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-51815-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamarta, C, Ortega, C, Villa, S, Pommer, R, Schwarze, JE. Are children born from singleton pregnancies conceived by ICSI at increased risk for congenital malformations when compared to children conceived naturally? A systematic review and meta-analysis. JBRA Assisted Reprod. 2017;21(3):251–9.Google Scholar

References

ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology, ALPHA. The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of art laboratory performance indicators. Hum Reprod Open. 2017;2.Google Scholar
Ding, D, Wang, Q, Li, X, et al. Effects of different polyvinylpyrrolidone concentrations on intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Zygote. 2020;14:1–6.Google Scholar
Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(6):1395–9.Google Scholar
Sustar, K, Rozen, G, Agresta, F, et al. Use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in normospermic men may result in lower clinical pregnancy and live birth rates. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;59:706–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Focus on Reproduction. Best of ESHRE & ASRM. ICSI: Fertilisation for all or only for male factor indications? Published April 8, 2019. www.focusonreproduction.eu/article/ESHRE-Meetings-BOEA-2019-ICSI.Google Scholar

References

Meseguer, M, Herrero, J, Tejera, A, Hilligsoe, KM, Ramsing, NB, Remohi, J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2658–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dal Canto, M, Coticchio, G, Mignini Renzini, M, et al. Cleavage kinetics analysis of human embryos predicts development to blastocyst and implantation. Reprod Biomed. 2012;25:474–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, Y, Zhu, B, Jiang, H, Zhang, J, Luo, Y, Tang, W. Influence of TP53 codon 72 polymorphism alone or in combination with HDM2 SNP309 on human infertility and IVF outcome. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0167147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ergin, EG, Caliskan, E, Yalcinkaya, E, et al. Frequency of embryo multinucleation detected by time-lapse system and its impact on pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1029–33, e1021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rocafort, E, Enciso, M, Leza, A, Sarasa, J, Aizpurua, J. Euploid embryos selected by an automated time-lapse system have superior SET outcomes than selected solely by conventional morphology assessment. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:1573–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, LR, Goldberg, J, Falcone, T, Austin, C, Desai, N. Does the addition of time-lapse morphokinetics in the selection of embryos for transfer improve pregnancy rates? A randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:275–85, e210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pribenszky, C, Nilselid, AM, Montag, M. Time-lapse culture with morphokinetic embryo selection improves pregnancy and live birth chances and reduces early pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed. 2017;35:511–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Armstrong, S, Bhide, P, Jordan, V, Pacey, A, Marjoribanks, J, Farquhar, C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrne Database Syst Rev. 2019;(5). Art. No.: CD011320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reignier, A, Lammers, J, Barriere, P, Freour, T. Can time-lapse parameters predict embryo ploidy? A systematic review. Reprod Biomed. Online. 2018;36(4):380–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.01.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chavez, SL, Loewke, KE, Han, J, et al. Dynamic blastomere behaviour reflects human embryo ploidy by the four-cell stage. Nat Commun. 2012;3:1251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, Z, Zhang, J, Salem, SA, et al. Selection of competent blastocysts for transfer by combining time-lapse monitoring and array CGH testing for patients undergoing preimplantation genetic screening: a prospective study with sibling oocytes. BMC Med Genom. 2014;7:38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rocafort, E, Enciso, M, Leza, A, Sarasa, J, Aizpurua, J. Euploid embryos selected by an automated time-lapse system have superior SET outcomes than selected solely by conventional morphology assessment. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:1573–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Pribenszky, C, Nilselid, AM, Montag, M. Time-lapse culture with morphokinetic embryo selection improves pregnancy and live birth chances and reduces early pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017 Nov;35(5):511–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storr, A, Venetis, C, Cooke, S, Kilani, S, Ledger, W. Time-lapse algorithms and morphological selection of day-5 embryos for transfer: a preclinical validation study. Fertil Steril. 2018 Feb;109(2):276–83.e3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tran, D, Cooke, S, Illingworth, PJ, Gardner, DK. Deep learning as a predictive tool for fetal heart pregnancy following time-lapse incubation and blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2019 June 4;34(6):1011–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Armstrong, S, Bhide, P, Jordan, V, Pacey, A, Marjoribanks, J, Farquhar, C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 May 29;5:CD011320.Google ScholarPubMed
Mastenbroek, S, Twisk, M, van Echten-Arends, J, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. New Engl J Med. 2007;357:9–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Armstrong, S, Bhide, P, Jordan, V, Pacey, A, Marjoribanks, J, Farquhar, C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; Issue 5. Art. No.: CD011320. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011320.pub4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pribenszky, C, Nilselid, A-M, Montag, M Time-lapse culture with morphokinetic embryo selection improves pregnancy and live birth chances and reduces early pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis. Reprod BioMed. Online 2017;35:511–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Wang, R, Pan, W, Jin, L, et al. Artificial intelligence in reproductive medicine. Reproduction. 2019;158(4):R139–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khosravi, P, Kazemi, E, Zhan, Q, et al. Deep learning enables robust assessment and selection of human blastocysts after in vitro fertilization. NPJ Dig Med. 2019;2(21).Google ScholarPubMed
VerMilyea, M, Hall, JMM, Diakiw, SM, et al. Development of an artificial intelligence-based assessment model for prediction of embryo viability using static images captured by optical light microscopy during IVF. Hum Reprod. 2020;35(4):770–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chavez-Badiola, A, Flores-Saiffe-Farıas, A, Mendizabal-Ruiz, G, Drakeley, AJ, Cohen, J. Embryo Ranking Intelligent Classification Algorithm (ERICA), an artificial intelligence clinical assistant with embryo ploidy and implantation predicting capabilities. Reprod BioMed. Online 2020;41(4):585–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Tran, D, Cooke, S, Illingworth, P, Gardner, D. Deep learning as a predictive tool for fetal heart pregnancy following time-lapse incubation and blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(6):1011–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Armstrong, S, Bhide, P, Jordan, V, Pacey, A, Marjoribanks, J, Farquhar, C. Time‐lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019(5). 10.1002/14651858.CD011320.pub4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyagi, Y, Habara, T, Hirata, R, Hayashi, N. Feasibility of artificial intelligence for predicting live birth without aneuploidy from a blastocyst image. Reprod Med Biol. 2019;18(2):204–11.Google ScholarPubMed
HFEA. Treatment add-ons 2019. Available from: www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/explore-all-treatments/treatment-add-ons/Google Scholar

References

Glujovsky, D, Farquhar, C, Quinteiro Retamar, AM, Alvarez Sedo, CR, Blake, D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; Issue 6. Art.No.: CD002118. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciray, HN, Aksoy, T, Goktas, C, Ozturk, B, Bahecci, M. Time lapse evaluation of human embryo development in single versus sequential culture media – a sibling oocyte study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:891–900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mascarenhas, M, Fox, SJ, Thompson, K, Balen, AH. Cumulative live birth rates and perinatal outcomes with the use of time lapse imaging incubators for embryo culture: a retrospective cohort study of 1882 ART cycles. BJOG. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, JE, Carrell, D, Cobo, A, Messeuger, M, Rubio, C, Smith, GD. Optimising the culture environment and embryo manipulation to help maintain embryo developmental potential. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:571–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van, HK, Segal, T, Epstein, D, Liu, J, Rossi, B, Goldfarb, J. Predicting blastulation rate with day 2 and 3 morphology: evaluation of cost limited embryo assessment. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(3) sup e54–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Mascarenhas, M, Fox, SJ, Thompson, K, Balen, AH. Cumulative live birth rates and perinatal outcomes with the use of time-lapse imaging incubators for embryo culture: a retrospective cohort study of 1882 ART cycles. BJOG 2019;126(2):280–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ESHRE Working Group on Time-Lapse Technology: Apter, S, Ebner, T, Freour, T, et al. Good practice recommendations for the use of time-lapse technology. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020: Issue 2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, S, Hobeika, E, Knochenhauer, ES, Traub, ML. Pregnancy rates after pre-implantation genetic screening for aneuploidy are only superior when trophectoderm biopsy is performed on hatching embryos. JARG. 2019;36(4):621–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Swain, J. Controversies in ART: considerations and risks for uninterrupted embryo culture. RMBO. 2019:39(1):19–26.Google ScholarPubMed
Sfontouris, IA, Martins, WP, Nastri, CO, et al. Blastocyst culture using single versus sequential media in clinical IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JARG. 2016;33(10):1261–72.Google ScholarPubMed

References

Glujovsky, D, Farquhar, C, Quinteiro Retamar, AM, Alvarez Sedo, CR, Blake, D. Cleavage-stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; Issue 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HFEA. Fertility treatment in 2014–2016, trends and figures. Human Fertility Embryology Authority: UK, 2018.Google Scholar
Jarvis, GE. Early embryo mortality in natural human reproduction: What the data say. F1000Res. 2017;5:2765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delhanty, JDA. Mechanisms of aneuploidy induction in human oogenesis and early embryogenesis. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2005;111(3–4):237–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marconi, N, Raja, EA, Bhattacharya, S, Maheshwari, A. Perinatal outcomes in singleton live births after fresh blastocyst-stage embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 67 147 IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(9):1716–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Fertility treatment in 2014: Trends and figures. HFEA, 2016; available from: www.hfea.gov.uk/10243.html.Google Scholar
Kasraie, J. (2019) Cleavage stage or blastocyst transfer: which is better? In: Kovacs, G, Salamonsen, L (eds.) How to Prepare the Endometrium to Maximize Implantation Rates and IVF Success. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glujovsky, D, Farquhar, C, Quinteiro Retamar, AM, Alvarez Sedo, CR, Blake, D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016, Issue 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maheshwari, A, Hamilton, M, Bhattacharya, S. Should we be promoting embryo transfer at blastocyst stage? Reprod BioMed. Online, 2016;32(2):142–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×