Giant oocytes in human in vitro fertilization treatments

Lehner, Adam; Kaszas, Zita; Murber, Ákos; Rigó, János; Urbancsek, János; Fancsovits, Péter

doi:10.1007/s00404-015-3679-0

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…• Presence of giant oocyte ↑ Estradiol level (Balakier et al, 2002;Lehner et al, 2015) ↑ obtained oocyte number (Balakier et al, 2002;Lehner et al, 2015) ↑ abnormal embryonic cleavage (Machtinger et al, 2011) Note: ↑, increased; ↓, decreased.…”

Section: Extracytoplasmic Factor Property Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A study by Machtinger, Politch, Hornstein, Ginsburg, and Racowsky (2011) documented that the presence of giant oocytes in a cohort of retrieved oocytes led to abnormal embryonic cleavage (increased percentage of 1‐ and 10‐cell embryos and reduced percentage of 6‐ and 7‐cell embryos; Table 2), but there were no differences in the rates of embryos with perfect symmetry, fragmentation and implantation, as well as clinical or ongoing/delivered pregnancy rates when compared with the cohort of oocytes without a giant oocyte. In a different study, researchers created two groups: a giant group involved cycles with at least one giant oocyte in the cohort of obtained oocytes, and a normal group included cycles with no giant oocytes (Lehner et al, 2015). The giant group had significantly higher estradiol levels and a higher number of retrieved oocytes compared with the normal group.…”

Section: Morphological Evaluation On Human Oocytesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Selection of competent oocytes by morphological criteria for assisted reproductive technologies

Öztürk

2020

Molecular Reproduction Devel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive and noninvasive methods are commonly used to select developmentally competent oocytes that can improve the take-home baby rates in assisted reproductive technology (ART) centers. One of the noninvasive methods conventionally utilized to determine competent oocytes is the morphological analysis of cumulus complex, first polar body, zona pellucida, perivitelline space, meiotic spindle, and ooplasm. Successful fertilization, early embryo development, uterine implantation, and healthy pregnancy depend on the quality of oocytes, and morphological evaluation is one of the options used to predict quality levels. In this review, the morphological criteria being utilized in certain ART centers are comprehensively evaluated with special references to their predictive values and potential contributions to selecting high-quality oocytes.

show abstract

Section: Extracytoplasmic Factor Property Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Morphological Evaluation On Human Oocytesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection of competent oocytes by morphological criteria for assisted reproductive technologies

Öztürk

2020

Molecular Reproduction Devel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This KPI ( (Balakier et al, 2002;Lehner et al, 2015;Rosenbusch et al, 2002). • Regarding oocytes with smooth endoplasmic reticulum clusters (SER), more recent publications reporting outcomes suggest that the Istanbul consensus recommendation not to inject/inseminate these oocytes may need to be revisited (Mateizel et al, 2013).…”

Section: Icsi Damage Ratementioning

confidence: 99%

The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of ART laboratory performance indicators

Apter

Balaban

Campbell

et al. 2017

Reproductive BioMedicine Online

239

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This proceedings report presents the outcomes from an international workshop supported by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine, designed to establish consensus on definitions and recommended values for Indicators for the assisted reproductive technology (ART) laboratory. Minimum performance-level values ('competency') and aspirational ('benchmark') values were recommended for a total of 19 Indicators, including 12 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), five Performance Indicators (PIs), and two Reference Indicators (RIs).

show abstract

“…Notes : – Total ICSI failed fertilization rate: It was the consensus of the expert panel that complete failure to achieve normal fertilization in an ICSI cycle did not need to be a PI, but should be reported by exception, meaning that ‘every case’ should be investigated. This includes only stimulated cycles, as natural cycles are expected to have only one oocyte.– Poor ICSI fertilization rate: Although opinion regarding the expected incidence of cycles with ICSI fertilization rates <25% was sought in the Alpha survey, the consensus of the expert panel was to exclude this indicator, as it did not add to the information already collected.– Giant oocytes should not be injected due to published evidence of chromosomal abnormality (Balakier et al , 2002; Rosenbusch et al , 2002; Lehner et al , 2015). – Regarding smooth endoplasmic reticulum (SER) positive oocytes, more recent publications of outcomes suggest that the Istanbul Consensus recommendation not to inject/inseminate these oocytes may need to be revisited (Mateizel et al , 2013).…”

Section: Recommendations Of the Expert Panelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…– Giant oocytes should not be injected due to published evidence of chromosomal abnormality (Balakier et al , 2002; Rosenbusch et al , 2002; Lehner et al , 2015).…”

Section: Recommendations Of the Expert Panelmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of art laboratory performance indicators†‡

2017

Human Reproduction Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

STUDY QUESTION What are appropriate performance indicators (PIs) for ART laboratories for use in monitoring ‘fresh’ IVF and ICSI cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER Minimum performance (competence) levels and aspirational (benchmark) values were recommended for a total of 19 indicators, including 12 key PIs (KPIs), five PIs and two reference indicators (RIs). WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN PIs are necessary for systematic monitoring of the laboratory and an important element within the Quality Management System. However, there are no established PIs for ART laboratories and there is very little evidence on the topic. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This is the report of a 2-day consensus meeting of expert professionals. As a starting point for the discussion, two surveys were organized to collect information on indicators used in IVF laboratories. During the meeting, the results of the surveys, scientific evidence (where available), and personal clinical experience where integrated into presentations by experts on specific topics. After presentation, each proposed indicator was discussed until consensus was reached within the panel. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Expert professionals representing different countries and settings convened in the consensus meeting. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The paper is divided in two parts: the workshop report and the recommendations of the expert panel. The second part reflects the discussion on each of the indicators, with the agreed definition, competence level and benchmark value for each of the 19 indicators, including 12 KPIs, 5 PIs and 2 RIs. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The KPIs are mainly based on expert opinion. Future research may warrant an update of the recommended KPIs, their definition and the competence level and benchmark values. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Based on the information presented, each ART laboratory should select its own set of KPIs founded on laboratory organization, and processes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The consensus meeting and writing of the paper was supported by funds from ESHRE and Alpha. Alpha gratefully acknowledges the following organizations for their financial support, through the provision of unrestricted educational grants: Global Fertility Alliance, Merck, Origio and Vitrolife. There are no conflicts of interest to disclose,

show abstract

Giant oocytes in human in vitro fertilization treatments

Cited by 10 publications

References 9 publications

Selection of competent oocytes by morphological criteria for assisted reproductive technologies

Selection of competent oocytes by morphological criteria for assisted reproductive technologies

The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of ART laboratory performance indicators

The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of art laboratory performance indicators†‡

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About