Book contents
- A Textbook of Clinical Embryology
- A Textbook of Clinical Embryology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Frontispiece
- Chapter Co-authors
- Acknowledgments
- Section 1 Physiology of Reproduction
- Section 2 Assisted Reproductive Procedures
- Section 3 Genetics and Preimplantation Genetic Testing
- Section 4 IVF Laboratory
- Index
- References
Section 4 - IVF Laboratory
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 March 2021
Edited by
Book contents
- A Textbook of Clinical Embryology
- A Textbook of Clinical Embryology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Frontispiece
- Chapter Co-authors
- Acknowledgments
- Section 1 Physiology of Reproduction
- Section 2 Assisted Reproductive Procedures
- Section 3 Genetics and Preimplantation Genetic Testing
- Section 4 IVF Laboratory
- Index
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- A Textbook of Clinical Embryology , pp. 226 - 238Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Pal, L, Kidwai, N, Kayani, J, Grant, WB. Donor egg IVF model to assess ecological implications for ART success. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2014; 31:1453–1460.Google Scholar
Johansson, L. Establishment of an ART clinic: location, construction and design. In: Varghese, A, Sjoblom, P, Jayaprakasan, K, eds., A Practical Guide to Setting Up an IVF Lab, Embryo Culture Systems and Running the Unit. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd; 2013; 24–30.Google Scholar
Nijs, M, Franssen, K, Cox, A, et al. Reprotoxicity of intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer disposables and products: a 4-year survey. Fertil. Steril. 2009; 92:527–535.Google Scholar
Gardner, DK, Lane, M. Culture systems for the human embryo. In: Gardner, D, Weismann, A, Howles, CM, Shoham, Z, eds., Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Techniques: Laboratory and Clinical Perspectives. Boca Raton: CRC Press 2017; 200–224.Google Scholar
Ottesen, LD, Hindkjaer, J, Ingerslev, J. Light exposure of the ovum and pre-implantation embryo during ART procedures. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2007; 24:99–103.Google Scholar
Hua, VK, Cooke, S. Volatile organic compounds within the IVF laboratory. FSA Australia 2013.Google Scholar
Lierman, S, De Sutter, P, Dhont, M, Van der Elst, J. Double-quality control reveals high-level toxicity in gloves used for operator protection in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil. Steril. 2007; 88:1266–1267.Google Scholar
Brais, N. Air disinfection for ART clinics using ultraviolet germicidal irradiation. In: Esteves, SC, Varghese, AC, Worrilow, KC, eds., Clean Room Technology in ART Clinics: A Practical Guide. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 2017; 119–132.Google Scholar
Mortimer, D, Mortimer, ST. Quality and Risk Management in the IVF Laboratory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2005.Google Scholar
Palmer, GA, Kratka, C, Szvetecz, S, et al. Comparison of 36 assisted reproduction laboratories monitoring environmental conditions and instrument parameters using the same quality-control application. RBM Online 2019; 39:63–74.Google Scholar
Mortimer, D, Cohen, J, Mortimer, ST, et al. Cairo consensus on the IVF laboratory environment and air quality: report of an expert meeting. RBM Online 2018; 36:658–674.Google Scholar
Esteves, SC, Bento, FC. Implementation of air quality control in reproductive laboratories in full compliance with the Brazilian Cells and Germinative Tissue Directive. RBM Online 2013; 26:9–21.Google ScholarPubMed
Munch, EM, Sparks, AE, Duran, HE, Van Voorhis, BJ. Lack of carbon air filtration impacts early embryo development. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2015; 32:1009–1017.Google Scholar
Heitmann, RJ, Hill, MJ, James, AN, et al. Live births achieved via IVF are increased by improvements in air quality and laboratory environment. RBM Online 2015; 31:364–371.Google Scholar
Khoudja, RY, Xu, Y, Li, T, Zhou, C. Better IVF outcomes following improvements in laboratory air quality. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2013; 30:69–76.Google Scholar
Boone, WR, Johnson, JE, Locke, A-J, Crane, MM, Price, TM. Control of air quality in an assisted reproductive technology laboratory. Fertil. Steril. 1999; 71:150–154.Google Scholar
Swain, JE. Decisions for the IVF laboratory: comparative analysis of embryo culture incubators. RBM Online 2014; 28:535–547.Google ScholarPubMed
Sciorio, R, Smith, GD. Embryo culture at a reduced oxygen concentration of 5%: a mini review. Zygote 2019; 23:1–7.Google Scholar
Edwards, RG, Steptoe, PC, Purdy, JM. Fertilization and cleavage in vitro of preovulator human oocytes. Nature 1970; 227:1307–1309.Google Scholar
Hoff, A, Khabani, A, Khabani, C, Hickok, L, Marshall, L. Reduced oxygen tension helps increase the quality of blastocyst available on D5. Fertil. Steril. 2008; 90:S350.Google Scholar
Meintjes, M, Chantilis, SJ, Douglas, JD, et al. A controlled randomized trial evaluating the effect of lowered incubator oxygen tension on live births in a predominantly blastocyst transfer program. Hum. Reprod. 2009; 24:300–307.Google Scholar
Nastry, CO, Nóbrega, BN, Teixeira, DM, et al. Low versus atmospheric oxygen tension for embryo culture in assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil. Steril. 2016; 106:95–104.Google Scholar
Mori, C, Kuwayama, M, Silber, S, Kagawa, N, Kato, H. Water evaporation and osmolality change of human embryo culture media in humid or in dry culture systems. Fertil. Steril. 2010; 94:S151.Google Scholar
Fawzy, M, Abdel Rahman, MY, Zidan, MH, et al. Humid versus dry incubator: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Fertil. Steril. 2017; 108:277–283.Google Scholar
Del Gallego, R, Albert, C, Marcos, J, et al. Humid vs. dry embryo culture conditions on embryo development: a continuous embryo monitoring assessment. Fertil. Steril. 2018; 110:e362.Google Scholar
Holmes, R, Swain, J. Humidification of a dry benchtop IVF incubator: impact on culture media parameters. Fertil. Steril. 2018; 110:e52.Google Scholar
Carpenter, G, Hammond, E, Peek, J, Morbeck, D. The impact of dry incubation on osmolality of media in time lapse culture dishes. Hum. Reprod. 2018; 33:i61.Google Scholar
Swain, J. Different mineral oils used for embryo culture microdrop overlay differentially impact media evaporation. Fertil. Steril. 2018; 109:e53.Google Scholar
Swain, J. Controversies in ART: considerations and risks for uninterrupted embryo culture. RBM Online 2019; 39:19–26.Google Scholar
Calhaz-Jorge, C, de Geyter, C, Kupka, MS, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2012: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum. Reprod. 2016; 31:1638–1652.Google Scholar
Edwards, RG, Purdy, JM, Steptoe, PC, Walters, DE. The growth of human preimplantation embryos in vitro. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1981; 141:408–416.Google Scholar
Wright, G, Wiker, S, Elsner, C, et al. Observations on the morphology of pronuclei and nucleoli in human zygotes and implications for cryopreservation. Hum. Reprod. 1990; 5:109–115.Google Scholar
Alikani, M, Calderon, G, Tomkin, G, et al. Cleavage anomalies in early human embryos and survival after prolonged culture in vitro. Hum. Reprod. 2000; 15:2634–2643.Google Scholar
Plachot, M, Mandelbaum, J. Oocyte maturation, fertilization and embryonic growth in vitro. Br. Med. Bull. 1990; 46:675–694.Google Scholar
Gardner, DK, Lane, M, Stevens, J, Schlenker, T, Schoolcraft, WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards single blastocyst transfer. Fertil. Steril. 2000; 73:1155–1158.Google Scholar
Meseguer, M, Herrero, J, Tejera, A, et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum. Reprod. 2011; 26:2658–2671.Google Scholar
Ciray, HN, Campbell, A, Agerholm, IE, et al. Proposed guidelines on the nomenclature and annotation of dynamic human embryo monitoring by a time-lapse user group. Hum. Reprod. 2014; 29:2650–2660.Google Scholar
Meseguer, M, Rubio, I, Cruz, M, et al. Embryo incubation and selection in a time-lapse monitoring system improves pregnancy outcome compared with a standard incubator: a retrospective cohort study. Fertil. Steril. 2012; 98:1481–1489.Google Scholar
Rubio, I, Galan, A, Larreategui, Z, et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the EmbryoScope. Fertil. Steril. 2014; 102:1287–1294.Google Scholar
Azzarello, A, Hoest, T, Mikkelsen, AL. The impact of pronuclei morphology and dynamicity on live birth outcome after time-lapse culture. Hum. Reprod. 2012; 27:2649–2657.Google Scholar
Wong, CC, Loewke, KE, Bossert, NL, et al. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat. Biotechnol. 2010; 28:1115–1121.Google Scholar
Desai, N, Goldberg, JM, Austin, C, Falcone, T. Are cleavage anomalies, multinucleation, or specific cell cycle kinetics observed with time-lapse imaging predictive of embryo developmental capacity or ploidy? Fertil. Steril. 2018; 109:665–674.Google Scholar
Liu, Y, Chapple, V, Roberts, P, Ali, J, Matson, P. Time-lapse videography of human oocytes following intracytoplasmic sperm injection: events up to the first cleavage division. Reprod. Biol. 2014; 14:249–256.Google Scholar
Cruz, M, Garrido, N, Herrero, J, et al. Timing of cell division in human cleavage-stage embryos is linked with blastocyst formation and quality. RBM Online 2012; 25:371–381.Google Scholar
Kirkegaard, K, Agerholm, IE, Ingerslev, HJ. Time-lapse monitoring as a tool for clinical embryo assessment. Hum. Reprod. 2012; 27:1277–1285.Google Scholar
Conaghan, J, Chen, AA, Willman, SP, et al. Improving embryo selection using a computer-automated time-lapse image analysis test plus day 3 morphology: results from a prospective multicenter trial. Fertil. Steril. 2013; 100:412–419.Google Scholar
Davies, S, Christopikou, D, Tsorva, E, et al. Delayed cleavage division and a prolonged transition between 2- and 4-cell stages in embryos identified as aneuploidy at the 8-cell stage by array-CGH. Hum. Reprod. 2012; 27:ii84–ii86.Google Scholar
Campbell, A, Fishel, S, Bowman, N, et al. Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. RBM Online 2013; 26:477–485.Google Scholar
Reignier, A, Lammers, J, Barriere, P, Freour, T. Can time-lapse parameters predict embryo ploidy? A systematic review. RBM Online 2018; 36:380–387.Google Scholar
Wong, KM, Repping, S, Mastenbroek, S. Limitations of embryo selection methods. Semin. Reprod. Med. 2014; 32:127–133.Google Scholar
Armstrong, S, Arroll, N, Cree, LM, Jordan, V, Farquhar, C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015; 2:CD011320. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011320.pub2.Google Scholar
Racowsky, C, Kovacs, P, Martins, WP. A critical appraisal of time-lapse imaging for embryo selection: where are we and where do we need to go? J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2015; 32:1025–1030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Armstrong, S, Bhide, P, Jordan, V, et al. Timelapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019; 29:CD011320. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011320.pub4.Google 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. RBM Online 2017; 35:511–520.Google Scholar
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; 126:280–286.Google Scholar
Ferrick, L, Lee, YSL, Gardner, DK. Reducing time to pregnancy and facilitating the birth of healthy children through functional analysis of embryo physiology. Biol. Reprod. 2019; 101:1124–1139. doi:10.1093/biolre/ioz005.Google Scholar
European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories (2015). Grimbergen: ESHRE. 2015.Google Scholar
Mehta, JG, Varghese, AC. Gases for embryo culture and volatile organic compounds in incubators. In: Esteves, SC, Varghese, AC, Worrilow, KC, eds., Clean Room Technology in ART Clinics: A Practical Guide. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 2017; 99–118.Google Scholar
Hunter, SK, Scott, JR, Hull, D, Urry, RL. The gamete and embryo compatibility of various synthetic polymers. Fertil. Steril. 1988; 50:110–116.Google Scholar
Blake, DA, Forsberg, AS, Hillensjö, T, Wikland, M. The practicalities of sequential blastocyst culture. In: ART, Science and Fiction, the second international Alpha Congress, Copenhagen (Denmark). 1999; Abstract O28.Google Scholar
Kupferschmied, HU, Kihm, U, Bachman, P, Muller, KH, Ackerman, M. Transmission of IBR/IPV virus in bovine semen: a case report. Theriogenology 1986; 25:439–443.Google Scholar
Bielanski, A, Bergeron, H, Lau, PC, Devenish, J. Microbial contamination of embryos and semen during long term banking in liquid nitrogen. Cryobiology 2003; 46:146–152.Google Scholar
Gilligan, AV. Establishing the IVF laboratory: a systems view. In: Carrell, DT, Peterson, CM, eds., Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility: Integrating Modern Clinical and Laboratory Practice. New York: Springer. 2010; 569–578.Google Scholar
Ottosen, LDM, Hindkjaer, J, Ingerslev, J. Light exposure of the ovum and preimplantation embryo during ART procedures. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2007; 24:99–103.Google Scholar
Ng, KYB, Mingels, R, Morgan, H, Macklon, N, Cheong, Y. In vivo oxygen, temperature and pH dynamics in the female reproductive tract and their importance in human conception: a systematic review. Hum. Reprod. Update 2018; 24:15–34.Google Scholar
Swain, JE, Cabrera, L, Xu, X, Smith, GD. Microdrop preparation factors influence culture-media osmolality, which can impair mouse embryo preimplantation development. RBM Online 2012; 24:142–147.Google Scholar
Baum, M, Orvieto, R, Kon, S, et al. Comparison of effects of thawing entire donor sperm vial vs. partial thawing (shaving) on sperm quality. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2018; 35:645–648.Google Scholar
Royere, D, Hamamah, S, Nicolle, JC, Lansac, J. Chromatin alterations induced by freeze-thawing influence the fertilizing ability of human sperm. Int. J. Androl. 1991;14:328–332.Google Scholar
Sakkas, D, Urner, F, Bianchi, PG, et al. Sperm chromatin anomalies can influence decondensation after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum. Reprod. 1996; 11:837–843.Google Scholar
Vutyavanich, T, Lattiwongsakorn, W, Piromlertamorn, W, Samchimchom, S. Repeated vitrification/warming of human sperm gives better results than repeated slow programmable freezing. Asian J. Androl. 2012;14:850–854.Google Scholar
Forte, M, Faustini, F, Maggiulli, R, et al. Electronic witness system in IVF—patients perspective. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2016; 33:1215–1222.Google Scholar
Varghese, AC, Palmer, GA. Clean room technology for low resource IVF units. In: Esteves, SC, Varghese, AC, Worrilow, KC, eds., Clean Room Technology in ART Clinics: A Practical Guide. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 2017; 347–354.Google Scholar
Barrese, E, Gioffrè, A, Scarpelli, M, et al. Indoor pollution in work office: VOCs, formaldehyde and ozone by printer. Occup. Dis. Environ. Med. 2014; 2:49–55.Google Scholar
ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology and Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine. The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of ART laboratory performance indicators. RBM Online 2017; 35:494–510.Google Scholar