48 -1 (33) 2021 — Yuldasheva S.Z. — MODERN MORPHOKINETIC ASSESSMENT OF EMBRYO QUALITY (literature review)

MODERN MORPHOKINETIC ASSESSMENT OF EMBRYO QUALITY (literature review)

Yuldasheva S.Z.–Tashkent Medical Pediatric Institute, Uzbekistan

Resume

The embryological stage of ART programs is one of the most important, since the assessment of the quality of oocytes, their fertilization and in vitro cultivation to the stage of preimplantation embryos largely determine its success. Morphological evaluation of embryos remains the main method of embryo selection. Time-lapse microscopy is one of the modern methods of selecting a high-quality embryo for transfer. In the analysis of many retrospective and prospective studies, they emphasize the advantage and lack of differences compared to traditional morphological assessment of embryo quality Almost all publications devoted to time-lapse microscopy have focused on determining the timing of specific events of embryo division and then using this information to create algorithms to help select embryo for transfer.

Key words: assisted reproductive technologies, infertility, elective blastocyst transfer, time-lapse microscopy.

First page

256

Last page

259

For citation: Yuldasheva S.Z.  Modern morphokinetic assessment of embryo quality (literature review)//New Day in Medicine 1(33)2021 256-259 https://cutt.ly/Wx1P5Vv

LIST OF REFERENCES

  1. Ivanova O.V., Shurygina O.V., Rusakov D.Yu. Bykova T.V., Petrova A.A., Yukhimets S.N., Kulakova O.V., Yuldasheva S.Z. Evaluation of the effectiveness of cryopreservation of human gametes and embryos in programs of assisted reproductive technologies // Morphological statements. – 2019.- Volume 27.- No. 3.- P. 46-50. https://doi.org/10.20340/mv-mn.19(27).03.46-50
  2. Coticchio G, Mignini Renzini M, Novara PV, Lain M, De Ponti E, Turchi D, Fadini R, Dal CM. Focused time-lapse analysis reveals novel aspects of human fertilization and suggests new parameters of embryo viability. Hum Reprod 2018;33:23–31.
  3. Reignier A, Lammers J, Barriere P, Freour T. Can time-lapse parameters predict embryo ploidy? A systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online 2018;36:380–387. 
  4. Zaninovic N, Irani M, Meseguer M. Assessment of embryo morphology and developmental dynamics by time-lapse microscopy: is there a relation to implantation and ploidy? Fertil Steril 2017;108:722–729. 
  5. 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;
  6. De los Santos MJ, Apter S, Coticchio G, Debrock S, Lundin K, Plancha CE, Prados F, Rienzi L, Verheyen G. Woodward B et al. revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories (2015). Hum Reprod 2016;31:685–686.
  7. Brison DR, Roberts SA, Kimber SJ. How should we assess the safety of IVF technologies? Reprod Biomed Online 2013;27:710–721. 
  8. Harper J, Jackson E, Sermon K, Aitken RJ, Harbottle S, Mocanu E, Hardarson T, Mathur R, Viville S, Vail A et al. . Adjuncts in the IVF laboratory: where is the evidence for ‘add-on’ interventions? Hum Reprod 2017; 32:485–491.
  9. 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; Cd011320.
  10. Polanski LT, Coelho Neto MA, Nastri CO, Navarro PA, Ferriani RA, Raine-Fenning N, Martins WP. Time-lapse embryo imaging for improving reproductive outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014; 44:394–401.
  11. Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Yuan J, Liu F. Does time-lapse imaging have favorable results for embryo incubation and selection compared with conventional methods in clinical in vitro fertilization? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0178720.
  12. 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; 35:511–520. 
  13. Costa-Borges N, Belles M, Meseguer M, Galliano D, Ballesteros A, Calderon G. Blastocyst development in single medium with or without renewal on day 3: a prospective cohort study on sibling donor oocytes in a time-lapse incubator. Fertil Steril 2016;105:707–713.
  14. Kovacs P, Matyas S, Forgacs V, Sajgo A, Molnar L, Pribenszky C. Non-invasive embryo evaluation and selection using time-lapse monitoring: results of a randomized controlled study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2019; 233:58–63. [
  15. 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; 126:280–286.
  16. Insua MF, Cobo AC, Larreategui Z, Ferrando M, Serra V, Meseguer M. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of pregnancies conceived with embryos cultured in a time-lapse monitoring system. Fertil Steril 2017;108:498–504. 
  17. Elder K. and Dale B. In Vitro Fertilization. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000:1–310.
  18. Buster, John E. Fertility and Sterility, Volume 74, Issue 6, 1264
48-256-259-БухМИ

file

download