Display options
Cite
Halvaei I, Khalili MA, Razi MH, et al. Impact of different embryo loading techniques on pregnancy rates in in vitro fertlization/embryo transfer cycles. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2013;6(1):65-9doi: 10.4103/0974-1208.112385.
Halvaei, I., Khalili, M. A., Razi, M. H., Agha-Rahimi, A., & Nottola, S. A. (2013). Impact of different embryo loading techniques on pregnancy rates in in vitro fertlization/embryo transfer cycles. Journal of human reproductive sciences, 6(1), 65-9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.112385
Halvaei, Iman, et al. "Impact of different embryo loading techniques on pregnancy rates in in vitro fertlization/embryo transfer cycles." Journal of human reproductive sciences vol. 6,1 (2013): 65-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.112385
Halvaei I, Khalili MA, Razi MH, Agha-Rahimi A, Nottola SA. Impact of different embryo loading techniques on pregnancy rates in in vitro fertlization/embryo transfer cycles. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2013 Jan;6(1):65-9. doi: 10.4103/0974-1208.112385. PMID: 23869155; PMCID: PMC3713581.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Hum Reprod Sci. 2013 Jan;6(1):65-9. doi: 10.4103/0974-1208.112385.

Impact of different embryo loading techniques on pregnancy rates in in vitro fertlization/embryo transfer cycles.

Journal of human reproductive sciences

Iman Halvaei, Mohammad Ali Khalili, Mohammad H Razi, Azam Agha-Rahimi, Stefania A Nottola

Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Embryology, Yazd Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.

PMID: 23869155 PMCID: PMC3713581 DOI: 10.4103/0974-1208.112385

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Embryo transfer (ET) technique is one of the important factors of in vitro fertlization success. Among the different steps in ET technique, less attention has been given to embryo loading (EL). The aim was to compare the impact of two different techniques of EL on pregnancy rate in IVF/ET cycles.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 144 and 170 patients were placed in groups A and B, respectively. In Group A, the embryos were drawn directly into the ET catheter from culture microdrop under the oil. In Group B, the embryos were transferred from culture microdrop into G2 medium in center-well dish. Then, the embryos were drawn into the catheter and finally transferred into the uterus. Both groups were adjusted for other parameters based on the EL technique. The main outcome measure was pregnancy rate.

RESULTS: There were insignificant differences for etiology of infertility, source of sperm, type of stimulation protocol, percent of IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection type of ET catheter, cycles with good quality embryos and transferred embryos between two groups. The rate of both chemical and clinical pregnancy was higher in Group B compared to A, but the difference was insignificant (P = 0.09 and P = 0.1, respectively).

CONCLUSION: It seems that there is no difference in the outcome by loading the embryo from microdrop or center-well dish.

Keywords: Embryo loading technique; embryo transfer; pregnancy

References

  1. Biol Reprod. 1997 Jan;56(1):229-37 - PubMed
  2. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012 Feb;24(2):163-9 - PubMed
  3. Fertil Steril. 1991 Jul;56(1):98-101 - PubMed
  4. Fertil Steril. 1989 Oct;52(4):680-2 - PubMed
  5. Fertil Steril. 2004 May;81(5):1366-70 - PubMed
  6. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006 Feb;12(2):191-8 - PubMed
  7. Hum Reprod. 2003 Sep;18(9):1848-52 - PubMed
  8. Hum Reprod. 1988 Oct;3(7):909-14 - PubMed
  9. Fertil Steril. 2010 Aug;94(3):785-90 - PubMed
  10. Fertil Steril. 1989 Jun;51(6):984-91 - PubMed
  11. Fertil Steril. 1986 Aug;46(2):262-7 - PubMed
  12. Fertil Steril. 2008 Jul;90(1):214-6 - PubMed
  13. Fertil Steril. 2000 Dec;74(6):1118-24 - PubMed
  14. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011 Feb;28(2):119-28 - PubMed
  15. Fertil Steril. 2001 Sep;76(3):630-2 - PubMed
  16. Fertil Steril. 1989 Nov;52(5):801-6 - PubMed
  17. Hum Reprod. 1998 Dec;13 Suppl 4:239-48 - PubMed
  18. Fertil Steril. 2007 May;87(5):1218-21 - PubMed
  19. Fertil Steril. 1995 Feb;63(2):366-70 - PubMed
  20. Hum Reprod. 2005 Nov;20(11):3114-21 - PubMed
  21. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007 Jan;14(1):80-4 - PubMed
  22. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002 Apr 10;102(1):57-60 - PubMed
  23. Fertil Steril. 2001 Nov;76(5):863-70 - PubMed
  24. Reproduction. 2002 Oct;124(4):557-64 - PubMed
  25. Int J Fertil Steril. 2011 Jul;5(2):110-5 - PubMed

Publication Types