International Journal of Infertility & Fetal Medicine

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Study of Morphokinetics in Day 3 Embryo with Implantation Potential and Effect of Sperm Cryopreservation on Embryogenesis

Harsha K Bhadarka, Nayana H Patel, Kruti B Patel, Nilofar R Sodagar, Yuvraj D Jadeja, Niket H Patel, Molina N Patel, Atul V Patel, Darshan H Patel, Jagdish S Patel

Citation Information : Bhadarka HK, Patel NH, Patel KB, Sodagar NR, Jadeja YD, Patel NH, Patel MN, Patel AV, Patel DH, Patel JS. Study of Morphokinetics in Day 3 Embryo with Implantation Potential and Effect of Sperm Cryopreservation on Embryogenesis. Int J Infertil Fetal Med 2017; 8 (2):61-67.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10016-1150

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-08-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim

In recent past, many studies had come up with the combination of time-lapse (TL) imaging of embryo morphokinetics as a noninvasive means for improving embryo selection and in vitro fertilization (IVF) success. The primary objective of the study was to find out if there is significant variation in morphokinetics of embryos with different implantation potential and also to study the effect of sperm freezing on time points of embryogenesis events in embryos with implantation potential.

Materials and methods

Kinetic data and cycle outcomes were analyzed retrospectively in 142 patients who had undergone IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles using semen with normal parameters and embryo transfer (ET) on day 3. For the surety of specificity of morphokinetics, only cases with single ET cycles were included in the study. Timing of specific events, from the point of ICSI, was determined using TL imaging. Kinetic markers like time to syngamy (t-pnf), t2, time to two cells (c), 3c (t3), 4c (t4), 5c (t5), 8c (t8), tMor, CC2, CC3, t5–t2, t5–t4, s1, s2, and s3 were calculated. The cleavage synchronicity from the 2–8 cell stage (CS2–8), from 4 to 8 cell stage (CS4–8), and from 2 to 4 cell stage (CS2–4) were calculated as defined elsewhere. Deoxyribonucleic acid replication time ratio (DR) was also included in the comparison. Analysis of variance test was used for comparison of the mean timing of cell division and cell cycle intervals.

Results

Morphokinetics t-pnf, t2, t8, CC2, S2, S3, CS2–8, CS4–8, and CS2–4 differed significantly between embryos with and without implantation potential, when embryos were developed using fresh semen, while t3, t4, t5, CC2, S2, t5–t2, CS2–4, and DR differed significantly between the embryos with and without implantation potential when frozen semen was used. No significant difference was found in mean value of any of the above-stated parameters when comparison was done between implanted embryos fertilized by either fresh or cryopreserved sperm.

Conclusion

Many morphokinetics parameters of embryogene­sis vary significantly between embryos with different ability to implant; therefore, the criteria developed in our IVF lab can be useful for selection of suitable embryo even at day 3 of development with more chances of implantation.

Clinical significance

Study indicates necessity of development of individualized selection model based on morphokinetics for every IVF lab and also confirms freezing as an important tool for fertility preservation of males as it does not affect events of embryogenesis.

How to cite this article

Bhadarka HK, Patel NH, Patel KB, Sodagar NR, Jadeja YD, Patel NH, Patel MN, Patel AV, Patel DH, Patel JS. Study of Morphokinetics in Day 3 Embryo with Implantation Potential and Effect of Sperm Cryopreservation on Embryogenesis. Int J Infertil Fetal Med 2017;8(2):61-67.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012 Jul;7:CD002118.
  2. Type of culture media does not affect embryo kinetics: a time-lapse analysis of sibling oocytes. Hum Reprod 2013 Mar;28(3):634-641.
  3. Time-lapse evaluation of human embryo development in single versus sequential culture media–a sibling oocyte study. J Assist Reprod Genet 2012 Sep;29(9):891-900.
  4. Relative kinetic expressions defining cleavage synchronicity are better predictors of blastocyst formation and quality than absolute time points. J Assist Reprod Genet 2015 Jan;32(1):27-35.
  5. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod 2011 Oct;26(10):2658-2671.
  6. Time-lapse monitoring as a tool for clinical embryo assessment. Hum Reprod 2012 May;27(5):1277-1285.
  7. Diagnosis of human preimplantation embryo viability. Hum Reprod Update 2015 Nov-Dec;21(6):727-747.
  8. Does one model fit all? Testing a published embryo selection algorithm on independent timelapse data. Hum Reprod 2013 Jul;28(1):87-90.
  9. External validation of a time-lapse prediction model. Fertil Steril 2015 Apr;103(4):917-922.
  10. Reproducibility of a time-lapse embryo selection model based on morphokinetic data in a sequential culture media setting. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2014 Aug;15(3):156-160.
  11. Assessment of human embryos by time-lapse videography: a comparison of quantitative and qualitative measures between two independent laboratories. Reprod Biol 2015 Dec;15(4):210-216.
  12. Time-lapse monitoring as a tool for clinical embryo assessment. Hum Reprod 2012;27:1277-1285
  13. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the EmbryoScope. Fertil Steril 2014 Nov;102(5):1287-1294.
  14. Analysis of embryo morphokinetics, multinucleation and cleavage anomalies using continuous time-lapse monitoring in blastocyst transfer cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2014 Jun;12:54.
  15. Kinetic markers of human embryo quality using time-lapse recordings of IVF/ICSI-fertilized oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online 2008 Sep;17(3):385-391.
  16. Is early embryo development as observed by time-lapse microscopy dependent on whether fresh or frozen sperm was used for ICSI? A cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet 2017 Jun;34(6):733-740.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.