Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-758b78586c-44n2s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-11-29T10:56:03.078Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Section 5 - Embryo Selection and Transfer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2019

Gabor Kovacs
Affiliation:
Monash University, Victoria
Anthony Rutherford
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
David K. Gardner
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Wale, PL, Gardner, DK. The effects of chemical and physical factors on mammalian embryo culture and their importance for the practice of assisted human reproduction. Hum Reprod Update 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, JE. Optimal human embryo culture. Semin Reprod Med 2015;33: 103–17.Google ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DK, Lane, M. Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF? Hum Reprod Update 1997;3: 367–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quinn, P. The development and impact of culture media for assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril 2004;81:2729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhenman, A, Berglund, L, Brodin, T et al. Which set of embryo variables is most predictive for live birth? A prospective study in 6252 single embryo transfers to construct an embryo score for the ranking and selection of embryos. Hum Reprod 2015;30:2836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, LA, Smith, S. The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 1998;13: 1003–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tesarik, J, Greco, E. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Hum Reprod 1999;14: 1318–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balaban, B, Yakin, K, Urman, B, Isiklar, A, Tesarik, J. Pronuclear morphology predicts embryo development and chromosome constitution. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;8:695700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Reprod Biomed Online 2011;22: 632–46.Google Scholar
The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Human Reproduction 2011;26: 1270–83.Google Scholar
Aguilar, J, Motato, Y, Escriba, MJ et al. The human first cell cycle: impact on implantation. Reprod Biomed Online 2014;28: 475–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rienzi, L, Ubaldi, F, Iacobelli, M et al. Significance of morphological attributes of the early embryo. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;10: 669–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardarson, T, Hanson, C, Sjogren, A, Lundin, K. Human embryos with unevenly sized blastomeres have lower pregnancy and implantation rates: indications for aneuploidy and multinucleation. Hum Reprod 2001;16: 313–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yakin, K, Balaban, B, Urman, B. Impact of the presence of one or more multinucleated blastomeres on the developmental potential of the embryo to the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 2005;83: 243–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardarson, T, Selleskog, U, Reismer, E et al. Zygotes cleaving directly into more than two cells after 25–27 h in culture are predominantly chromosomally abnormal. Hum Reprod 2006;21:i102.Google Scholar
Glujovsky, D, Blake, D, Farquhar, C, Bardach, A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;7:CD002118.Google Scholar
Gardner, DK, Balaban, B. Assessment of human embryo development using morphological criteria in an era of time-lapse, algorithms and OMICS: Is looking good still important? Mol Hum Reprod 2016 October;22(10):704–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggers, JD, Bell, JE, Benos, DJ. Mammalian blastocyst: transport functions in a developing epithelium. Am J Physiol 1988;255:C41932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, DK, Lane, M, Schoolcraft, WB. Physiology and culture of the human blastocyst. J Reprod Immunol 2002;55:85100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleming, TP, Johnson, MH. From egg to epithelium. Ann Rev Cell Biol 1988;4: 459–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tao, J, Craig, RH, Johnson, M et al. Cryopreservation of human embryos at the morula stage and outcomes after transfer. Fertil Steril 2004;82: 108–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ebner, T, Moser, M, Shebl, O et al. Morphological analysis at compacting stage is a valuable prognostic tool for ICSI patients. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;18: 61–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feil, D, Henshaw, RC, Lane, M. Day 4 embryo selection is equal to Day 5 using a new embryo scoring system validated in single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod 2008;23: 1505–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DK, Schoolcraft, WB. In vitro culture of human blastocyst In: Jansen, R, Mortimer, D, eds. Towards Reproductive Certainty: Fertility and Genetics Beyond 1999. Carnforth, UK: Parthenon Publishing 1999: 378–88.Google Scholar
Gardner, DK, Lane, M, Stevens, J, Schlenker, T, Schoolcraft, WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2000;73: 1155–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahlstrom, A, Westin, C, Reismer, E, Wikland, M, Hardarson, T. Trophectoderm morphology: an important parameter for predicting live birth after single blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod 2011;26: 3289–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ebner, T, Tritscher, K, Mayer, RB et al. Quantitative and qualitative trophectoderm grading allows for prediction of live birth and gender. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016;33:4957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DK. Lactate production by the mammalian blastocyst: manipulating the microenvironment for uterine implantation and invasion? Bioessays 2015;37: 364–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van den Abbeel, E, Balaban, B, Ziebe, S et al. Association between blastocyst morphology and outcome of single-blastocyst transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 2013;27: 353–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Licciardi, F, McCaffrey, C, Oh, C, Schmidt-Sarosi, C, McCulloh, DH. Birth weight is associated with inner cell mass grade of blastocysts. Fertil Steril 2015;103:382–7 e2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ansell, JD, Snow, MH. The development of trophoblast in vitro from blastocysts containing varying amounts of inner cell mass. J Embryol Exp Morphol 1975;33: 177–85.Google ScholarPubMed
Oron, G, Son, WY, Buckett, W, Tulandi, T, Holzer, H. The association between embryo quality and perinatal outcome of singletons born after single embryo transfers: a pilot study. Hum Reprod 2014;29: 1444–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, YS, Thouas, GA, Gardner, DK. Developmental kinetics of cleavage stage mouse embryos are related to their subsequent carbohydrate and amino acid utilization at the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod 2015;30: 543–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mastenbroek, S, van der Veen, F, Aflatoonian, A,. Embryo selection in IVF. Hum Reprod 2011;26: 964–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DK, Meseguer, M, Rubio, C, Treff, NR. Diagnosis of human preimplantation embryo viability. Hum Reprod Update 2015;21: 727–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Aparicio, B, Cruz, M, Meseguer, M. Is morphokinetic analysis the answer? Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2013;27(6): 654–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basile, N, Caiazzo, M, Meseguer, M. What does morphokinetics add to embryo selection and in-vitro fertilization outcomes? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2015 June;27(3):193200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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(10): 1115–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meseguer, M, Herrero, J, Tejera, A et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Human Reproduction 2011;26(10): 2658–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubio, I, Galán, 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(5): 1287–94. e5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basile, N, Vime, P, Florensa, M et al. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of implantation: a multicentric study to define and validate an algorithm for embryo selection. Hum Reprod 2015 February;30(2): 276–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 412–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkegaard, K, Campbell, A, Agerholm, I et al. Limitations of a time-lapse blastocyst prediction model: a large multicentre outcome analysis. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2014;2: 156–8.Google Scholar
Petersen, BM, Boel, M, Montag, M, Gardner, DK. Development of a generally applicable morphokinetic algorithm capable of predicting the implantation potential of embryos transferred on Day 3. Hum Reprod 2016 October;31(10): 2231–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, T, Chinn, K, Kosasa, T, Ahn, H, Kessel, B. Morphokinetics of human blastocyst expansion in vitro. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2016;33: 659–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nogales, MDC, Bronet, F, Basile, N et al. Type of chromosome abnormality affects embryo morphology dynamics. Fertil Steril 2017;107: 229–35.Google Scholar
Milewski, R, Czerniecki, J, Kuczyńska, A, Stankiewicz, B, Kuczyński, W. Morphokinetic parameters as a source of information concerning embryo developmental and implantation potential. Ginekol Pol 2016;87(10): 677–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, Y, Chapple, V, Feenan, K, Roberts, P, Matson, P. Time-lapse deselection model for human day 3 in vitro fertilization embryos: the combination of qualitative and quantitative measures of embryo growth. Fertil Steril 2016;105(3): 656–62. e1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Motato, Y, de los Santos, María José, Escriba, MJ et al. Morphokinetic analysis and embryonic prediction for blastocyst formation through an integrated time-lapse system. Fertil Steril 2015.Google Scholar
Kong, X, Yang, S, Gong, F et al. The Relationship between cell number, division behavior and developmental potential of cleavage stage human embryos: a time-lapse study. PloS one 2016;11(4):e0153697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bodri, D, Sugimoto, T, Serna, JY et al. Blastocyst collapse is not an independent predictor of reduced live birth: a time-lapse study. Fertil Steril 2016;105(6): 1476–83. e3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamson, GD, Abusief, ME, Palao, L et al. Improved implantation rates of day 3 embryo transfers with the use of an automated time-lapse–enabled test to aid in embryo selection. Fertil Steril 2016;105(2): 369–75. e6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kieslinger, DC, De Gheselle, S, Lambalk, CB et al. Embryo selection using time-lapse analysis (Early Embryo Viability Assessment) in conjunction with standard morphology: a prospective two-center pilot study. Hum Reprod 2016;31: 2450–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aparicio-Ruiz, B, Basile, N, Albalá, SP et al.Automatic time-lapse instrument is superior to single-point morphology observation for selecting viable embryos: retrospective study in oocyte donation. Fertil Steril 2016;106(6): 1379–85. e10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, LR, Goldberg, J, Falcone, T, Austin, C, Desai, N. Does the addition of time-lapse morphokinetics in the selection of embryos for transfer improve pregnancy rates? A randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2016;105(2): 275–85. e10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haikin Herzberger, E, Ghetler, Y, Tamir Yaniv, R et al. Time lapse microscopy is useful for elective single-embryo transfer. Gynecological Endocrinology 2016;32:13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahlstrom, A, Park, H, Bergh, C, Selleskog, U, Lundin, K. Conventional morphology performs better than morphokinetics for prediction of live birth after day 2 transfer. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2016;33:6170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa-Borges, N, Bellés, M, Meseguer, M et al.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(3): 707–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dal Canto, M, Novara, PV, Coticchio, G et al. Morphokinetics of embryos developed from oocytes matured in vitro. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016;33(2): 247–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tejera, A, Castelló, D, de los Santos, Jose Maria et al. Combination of metabolism measurement and a time-lapse system provides an embryo selection method based on oxygen uptake and chronology of cytokinesis timing. Fertil Steril 2016 July;106(1): 119–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, DV, Shah, PB, Kotdawala, AP et al. Morphokinetic behavior of euploid and aneuploid embryos analyzed by time-lapse in embryoscope. Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences 2016;9(2):112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balakier, H, Sojecki, A, Motamedi, G, Librach, C. Impact of multinucleated blastomeres on embryo developmental competence, morphokinetics, and aneuploidy. Fertil Steril 2016 July;106: 119–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bar-El, L, Kalma, Y, Malcov, M et al. Blastomere biopsy for PGD delays embryo compaction and blastulation: a time-lapse microscopic analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016 November;33:1491457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bodri, D, Kawachiya, S, Sugimoto, T et al. Time-lapse variables and embryo gender: a retrospective analysis of 81 live births obtained following minimal stimulation and single embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016;33(5): 589–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, Y, Lazzaroni-Tealdi, E, Wang, Q et al. Different effectiveness of closed embryo culture system with time-lapse imaging (EmbryoScope TM) in comparison to standard manual embryology in good and poor prognosis patients: a prospectively randomized pilot study. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 2016;14(1):49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demirel, C, Bastu, E, Aydogdu, S et al. The Presence of endometrioma does not impair time-lapse morphokinetic parameters and quality of embryos: a study on sibling oocytes. Reprod Sci 2016 August;23(8): 1053–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkegaard, K, Sundvall, L, Erlandsen, M et al. Timing of human preimplantation embryonic development is confounded by embryo origin. Hum Reprod 2016 February;31(2): 324–31.Google ScholarPubMed

References

Houghton, F.D., Hawkhead, J.A., Humpherson, P.G. et al., 2002. Non-invasive amino acid turnover predicts human embryo developmental capacity. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 17(4), pp. 9991005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guerif, F., McKeegan, P.J., Leese, H.J. & Sturmey, R.G., 2013. A simple approach for COnsumption and RElease (CORE) analysis of metabolic activity in single mammalian embryos. PloS one, 8(8), p. e67834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brison, D.R., Houghton, F.D., Falconer, D. et al., 2004. Identification of viable embryos in IVF by non-invasive measurement of amino acid turnover. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 19(10), pp. 2319–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Picton, H.M., Elder, K., Houghton, F.D. et al., 2010. Association between amino acid turnover and chromosome aneuploidy during human preimplantation embryo development in vitro. Molecular Human Reproduction, 16(8), pp. 557–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sturmey, R.G., Brison, D.R., Leese, H.J., 2008 October. Symposium: innovative techniques in human embryo viability assessment. Assessing embryo viability by measurement of amino acid turnover. Reprod Biomed Online, 17(4), pp. 486–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunde, A., Brison, D.R., Dumoulin, J.C.M. et al., 2016. Time to take human embryo culture seriously. Human Reproduction, 31(10), pp. 2174–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zuelke, K.A. & Brackett, B.G., 1992. Effects of luteinizing hormone on glucose metabolism in cumulus-enclosed bovine oocytes matured in vitro. Endocrinology, 131(6), pp. 2690–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Downs, S.M. & Utecht, A.M., 1999. Metabolism of radiolabeled glucose by mouse oocytes and oocyte-cumulus cell complexes1. Biology of Reproduction, 60(6), pp. 1446–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, S.M. & Hudson, E.D., 2000. Energy substrates and the completion of spontaneous meiotic maturation. Zygote (Cambridge, England), 8(4),pp. 339–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutton, M.L., Gilchrist, R.B. & Thompson, J.G., 2003. Effects of in-vivo and in-vitro environments on the metabolism of the cumulus-oocyte complex and its influence on oocyte developmental capacity. Human Reproduction Update, 9(1), pp. 3548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemmings, K.E., Leese, H.J. & Picton, H.M., 2012. Amino acid turnover by bovine oocytes provides an index of oocyte developmental competence in vitro1. Biology of Reproduction, 86(5), p. 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leese, H.J. & Barton, A.M., 1984. Pyruvate and glucose uptake by mouse ova and preimplantation embryos. Reproduction, 72(1), pp. 913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maruthini, D., Harris, S.E., Barth, J.H. et al., 2014. The effect of metformin treatment in vivo on acute and long-term energy metabolism and progesterone production in vitro by granulosa cells from women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Human Reproduction, 29(10), pp. 022316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marei, W.F.A., De Bie, J., Mohey-Elsaeed, O. et al., 2017. Alpha-linolenic acid protects the developmental capacity of bovine cumulus–oocyte complexes matured under lipotoxic conditions in vitro†. Biology of Reproduction, 96(6), pp. 1181–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, D.K. & Leese, H.J., 1987 April. Assessment of embryo viability prior to transfer by the noninvasive measurement of glucose uptake. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 242(1), pp. 103–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, E.M. & Leese, H.J., 1999. Triglyceride content of bovine oocytes and early embryos. Reproduction, 116(2), pp. 373–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forsey, K.E., Ellis, P.J., Sargent, C.A., Sturmey, R.G. & Leese, H.J., 2013. Expression and localization of creatine kinase in the preimplantation embryo. Molecular Reproduction and Development, 80(3), pp. 185–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, D.K., Wale, P.L., Collins, R. & Lane, M., 2011. Glucose consumption of single post-compaction human embryos is predictive of embryo sex and live birth outcome. Human Reproduction, 26(8), pp. 1981–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conaghan, J., Hardy, K., Handyside, A.H., Winston, R. M., & Leese, H.J., 1993. Selection criteria for human embryo transfer: a comparison of pyruvate uptake and morphology. Journal of Assisted …, 10(1), pp. 2130.Google ScholarPubMed
Leese, H.J., Guerif, F., Allgar, V. et al., 2016. Biological optimization, the Goldilocks principle, and how much is lagom in the preimplantation embryo. Molecular Reproduction and Development, 83(9), pp. 748–54. doi:10.1002/mrd.22684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sturmey, R.G., Bermejo-Alvarez, P., Gutierrez-Adan, A. et al., 2010. Amino acid metabolism of bovine blastocysts: a biomarker of sex and viability. Molecular Reproduction and Development, 77(3), pp. 285–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, D.K. & Wale, P.L., 2013. Analysis of metabolism to select viable human embryos for transfer. Fertility and Sterility, 99(4), pp. 1062–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemmings, K.E., Maruthini, D., Vyjayanthi, S. et al., 2013 April. Picton HM. Amino acid turnover by human oocytes is influenced by gamete developmental competence, patient characteristics and gonadotrophin treatment. Hum Reprod, 28(4), pp. 1031–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Blerkom, J., Cox, H. & Davis, P., 2006. Regulatory roles for mitochondria in the peri-implantation mouse blastocyst: possible origins and developmental significance of differential DeltaPsim. Reproduction (Cambridge, England), 131(5), pp. 961–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fridhandler, L., Hafez, E.S.E. & Pincus, G., 1957. Developmental changes in the respiratory activity of rabbit ova. Experimental Cell Research, 13(1), pp. 132–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tejera, A., Herrero, J., de Los Santos, M.J. et al.2011. Oxygen consumption is a quality marker for human oocyte competence conditioned by ovarian stimulation regimens. Fertility and Sterility, 96(3), pp. 618–23.e2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, L., Berntsen, J., Davies, D. et al., 2008. Human oocyte respiration-rate measurement – potential to improve oocyte and embryo selection? Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 17(4), pp. 461–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopes, A.S., Larsen, L.H., Ramsing, N. et al., 2005. Respiration rates of individual bovine in vitro-produced embryos measured with a novel, non-invasive and highly sensitive microsensor system. Reproduction (Cambridge, England), 130(5), pp. 669–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurosawa, H., Utsunomiya, H., Shiga, N. et al. 2016. Development of a new clinically applicable device for embryo evaluation which measures embryo oxygen consumption. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 31(10), pp. 2321–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seli, E., Sakkas, D., Scott, R. et al., 2007. Noninvasive metabolomic profiling of embryo culture media using Raman and near-infrared spectroscopy correlates with reproductive potential of embryos in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility, 88(5), pp. 501357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seli, E., Vergouw, C.G., Morita, H. et al., 2010. Noninvasive metabolomic profiling as an adjunct to morphology for noninvasive embryo assessment in women undergoing single embryo transfer. Fertility and Sterility, 94(2), pp. 535–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vergouw, C.G., Botros, L.L., Judge, K. et al., 2011. Non-invasive viability assessment of day-4 frozen–thawed human embryos using near infrared spectroscopy. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 23(6), pp. 769–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pudakalakatti, S.M., Uppangala, S., D’Souza, F. et al., 2013. NMR studies of preimplantation embryo metabolism in human assisted reproductive techniques: a new biomarker for assessment of embryo implantation potential. NMR in Biomedicine, 26(1), pp. 2027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D’Souza, F., Pudakalakatti, S.M., Uppangala, S. et al. 2016. Unraveling the association between genetic integrity and metabolic activity in pre-implantation stage embryos. Scientific Reports, 6, p. 37291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallace, M., Cottell, E., Cullinane, J. et al., 2014. 1 H NMR based metabolic profiling of day 2 spent embryo media correlates with implantation potential. Systems Biology in Reproductive Medicine, 60(1), pp. 5863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nadal-Desbarats, L., Veau, S., Blasco, H. et al., 2013. Is NMR metabolic profiling of spent embryo culture media useful to assist in vitro human embryo selection? Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, 26(2), pp.193202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKeegan, P.J. & Sturmey, R.G., 2012. The role of fatty acids in oocyte and early embryo development. Reproduction, Fertility, and Development, 24(1), pp. 5967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, K.R., Russell, D.L., Robker, R.L. et al., 2014. Lipids and oocyte developmental competence: the role of fatty acids and oxidation. Reproduction, 148(1), pp. R15R27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leary, C., Leese, H.J. & Sturmey, R.G., 2015. Human embryos from overweight and obese women display phenotypic and metabolic abnormalities. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England), 30, pp. 122–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lagarde, M., Géloën, A., Record, M., Vance, D. & Spener, F., 2003. Lipidomics is emerging. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) – Molecular and Cell Biology of Lipids, 1634(3), p. 61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, L.D., McCombie, G., Titman, C.M. & Griffin, J.L., 2008. A matter of fat: An introduction to lipidomic profiling methods. Journal of Chromatography B, 871(2), pp. 174–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vilella, F., Ramirez, L.B. & Simón, C., 2013. Lipidomics as an emerging tool to predict endometrial receptivity. Fertility and Sterility, 99(4), pp. 1100–06.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belaz, K.R.A., Tata, A., França, M.R. et al. 2016. Phospholipid profile and distribution in the receptive oviduct and uterus during early diestrus in cattle. Biol Reprod, 95(6), pp.111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siristatidis, C., Sergentanis, T.N., Vogiatzi, P. et al., 2015. In vitro maturation in women with vs. without polycystic ovarian syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis F. Qu, ed. PLOS ONE, 10(8), p.e0134696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Handyside, AH, Kontogianni, EH, Hardy, K, Winston, RM. Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature 1990;344(6268): 768–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munné, S, Dailey, T, Sultan, KM, Grifo, J, Cohen, J. The use of first polar bodies for preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy. Human Reprod 1995;10: 1015–21 .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verlinsky, Y, Cieslak, J, Freidine, M et al. Pregnancies following pre-conception diagnosis of common aneuploidies by fluorescent in situ hybridisation. Mol. Hum Reprod. 1995;10: 1923–27.Google Scholar
Harper, J., Coonen, E., De Rycke, M. et al. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? A position statement from the ESHRE PGD Consortium steering committee. Hum. Reprod. 2010; 25: 821–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harton, G, Magli, C, Lundin, Kersti et al. JC ESHRE PGD consortium/embryology special interest group-best practice guidelines for polar body and embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS). Human Reproduction 2010;26:4146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Rycke, M, Belva, F, Goossens, V et al.ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection XIII: cycles from January to December 2010 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2011. Hum Reprod 2015;30: 1763–89 .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gianaroli, L, Magli, MC, Pomante, A et al. Blastocentesis: a source of DNA for preimplantation genetic testing. Results from a pilot study. Fertil Steril 2014 December;102(6): 1692–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruangvutilert, P, Delhanty, JDA, Rodeck, C, Harper, JC. Relative efficiency of FISH on metaphase and interphase nuclei from non-mosaic trisomic or triploid fibroblast cultures. Prenatal Diagnosis. 2000;20: 159–62.3.0.CO;2-2>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubio, C, Giménez, C, Fernández, E et al. Spanish interest group in preimplantation genetics, Spanish society for the study of the biology of reproduction. The importance of good practice in preimplantation genetic screening: critical viewpoints. Hum Reprod. 2009;24: 2045–47 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubio, C, Bellver, J, Rodrigo, L et al. Preimplantation genetic screening using fluorescence in situ hybridization in patients with repetitive implantation failure and advanced maternal age: two randomized trials. Fertil Steril. 2013;99: 1400–07 .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forman, EJ, Hong, KH, Ferry, KM et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:100–07.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, RT Jr, Upham, KM, Forman, EJ et al. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:697703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vera-Rodríguez, M, Michel, CE, Mercader, A et al. Distribution patterns of segmental aneuploidies in human blastocysts identified by next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2016;105: 1047–55 .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruttanajit, T, Chanchamroen, S, Cram, DS et al.Detection and quantitation of chromosomal mosaicism in human blastocysts using copy number variation sequencing. Prenat Diagn. 2016;36: 154–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubio, C, Bellver, J, Rodrigo, L et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2017;107: 1122–29 .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mastenbroek, S, Twisk, M, van der Veen, F, Repping, S. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17: 454–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Musters, AM, Repping, S, Korevaar, JC et al. Pregnancy outcome after preimplantation genetic screening or natural conception in couples with unexplained recurrent miscarriage: A systematic review of the best available evidence. Fertil Steril. 2011;95: 2153–57 .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blockeel, C, Schutyser, V, De Vos, A et al. Prospectively randomized controlled trial of PGS in IVF/ICSI patients with poor implantation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17: 848–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia-Herrero, S, Rodrigo, L, Mateu, E et al. Medecine therapeutique/Medecine de la reproduction, gyn_ecologie et endocrinologie. John Libbey Eurotext, 2014;14: 112–19.Google Scholar
Rodrigo, L, Mateu, E, Mercader, A et al. New tools for embryo selection: comprehensive chromosome screening by array comparative genomic hybridization. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:517125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coates, A, Hesla, JS, Hurliman, A et al. Use of suboptimal sperm increases the risk of aneuploidy of the sex chromosomes in preimplantation blastocyst embryos. Fertil Steril. 2015;104: 866–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al-Asmar, N, Peinado, V, Vera, M et al. Chromosomal abnormalities in embryos from couples with a previous aneuploid miscarriage. Fertil Steril. 2012;98: 145–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, Z, Liu, J, Collins, GS et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet 2012;5:24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ravichandran, K, McCaffrey, C, Grifo, J et al.Mitochondrial DNA quantification as a tool for embryo viability assessment: retrospective analysis of data from single euploid blastocyst transfers. Hum Reprod. 2017;32: 1282–92 .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treff, NR, Zhan, Y, Tao, X et al. Levels of trophectoderm mitochondrial DNA do not predict the reproductive potential of sibling embryos. Hum Reprod. 2017;32: 954–62.Google Scholar
Feichtinger, M, Vaccari, E, Carli, L et al. Non-invasive preimplantation genetic screening using array comparative genomic hybridization on spent culture media: a proof-of-concept pilot study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017; pii: S1472-6483(17)30147–5.Google Scholar
Victor, AR, Brake, AJ, Tyndall, JC et al. Accurate quantitation of mitochondrial DNA reveals uniform levels in human blastocysts irrespective of ploidy, age, or implantation potential. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:3442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, W, Liu, J, Du, H et al. Non-invasive pre-implantation aneuploidy screening and diagnosis of beta thalassemia IVSII654 mutation using spent embryo culture medium. Ann Med. 2017;49: 319–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gebhart, MB, Hines, RS, Penman, A, Holland, AC. How do patient perceived determinants influence the decision-making process to accept or decline preimplantation genetic screening? Fertil Steril 2016;105: 188–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hens, K, Dondorp, W, Handyside, AH et al. Dynamics and ethics of comprehensive preimplantation genetic testing. A review of the challenges. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19: 366–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greco, E, Minasi, MG, Fiorentino, F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. N Engl J Med.2015;373:2089–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harper, J, Jackson, E, Sermon, K et al.(2017). Adjunts in the IVF laboratory: where is the evidence for ‘add-on’ interventions? Human Reproduction, 2: 485–91.Google Scholar

References

Gardner, DK and Lane, M. Alleviation of the “2- cell block” and development to the blastocyst of CFI mouse embryos: role of amino acids, EDTA and physical parameters. Hum Reprod 1996; 11:2701–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, DK. Development of serum-free media for the culture and transfer of human blastocysts. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 Suppl 4:218–25.Google ScholarPubMed
Edwards, RG, Brody, S. Principles and Practice of Assisted Human Reproduction. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, 1995.Google Scholar
della Ragione, T, Verheyen, G, Papanikolaou, EG et al. Developmental stage on day –5 and fragmentation rate on day –3 can influence the implantation potential of top-quality blastocysts in IVF cycles with single embryo transfer. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2007; 5:2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DK and Schoolcraft, WB. In vitro culture of human blastocysts. In: Jansen, R, Mortimer, D (eds.) Toward Reproductive Certainty: Fertility and Genetics Beyond. Parthenon Publishing, Carnforth, UK, 1999, pp. 378–88.Google Scholar
Papanikolaou, EG, Kolibianakis, EM, Tournaye, H et al.Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2008; 23:9199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, M, Hartke, K, Kiehl, M et al. Transfer of blastocysts and morulae on day 5. Fertil Steril 2004; 82:327–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fragouli, E, Alfarawati, S, Spath, K, Wells, D. Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod 2014; 20, 117–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staessen, C, Platteau, P, Van Assche, E et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2004; 19:2849–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blake, DA, Proctor, M, Johnson, NP The merits of blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 2004;19:795–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glujovsky, D, Farquhar, C, Quinteiro Retamar, AM, Alvarez Sedo, CR, Blake, D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD002118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maheshwari, A, Hamilton, M, Bhattacharya, S. Should we be promoting embryo transfer at blastocyst stage? Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2016; 32:142–46.Google Scholar
Papanikolaou, EG, D’haeseleer, E, Verheycn, G et al. Live birth rate is significantly higher after blastocyst transfer than after cleavage-stage transfer when at least four embryos are available on day 3 of culture. A randomized prospective study. Human Reprod 2005; 20:3198–203.Google ScholarPubMed
Papanikolaou, EG, Camus, M, Fatemi, HM et al. Early pregnancy loss is significantly higher after day 3 single embryo transfer than after day 5 single blastocyst transfer in GnRH antagonist stimulated IVF cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:6065.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaur, P, Swarankar, ML, Maheshwari, M, Acharya, V. A comparative study between cleavage stage embryo transfer at day 3 and blastocyst stage transfer at day 5 in IVF/ICSI on clinical pregnancy rates. Indian Journal of Clinical Practice 2014; 24:663–67.Google Scholar
Aziminekoo, E, Mohseni Salehi, MS, Kalantari, V et al. Pregnancy outcome after blastocyst stage transfer comparing to early cleavage stage embryo transfer. Gynecol Endocrinol 2015; 31:880–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernández-Shaw, S, Cercas, R, Brana, C, Villas, C, Pons, I. Ongoing and cumulative pregnancy rate after cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer using vitrification for cryopreservation: impact of age on the results. J Assist Reprod Genet 2015; 32:177–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, Z, Liu, J, Collins, GS et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet 2012;5:18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forman, EJ, Hong, KH, Ferry, KM et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2013b; 100:100–07. e101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, RT Jr, Upham, KM, Forman, EJ et al. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2013a; 100: 697703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kedem, A, Haas, J, Geva, LL et al. Ongoing pregnancy rates in women with low and extremely low AMH levels. A multivariate analysis of 769 cycles. He B, ed. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e81629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitthala, S, Gelbaya, TA, Brison, DR, Fitzgerald, CT, Nardo, LG. The risk of monozygotic twins after assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2009; 15: 4555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papanikolaou, EG, Fatemi, H, Venetis, C et al. Monozygotic twinning is not increased after single blastocyst transfer compared with single cleavage-stage embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2010: 93:592–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abuzeid, MI, Bolonduro, O, La Chance, J et al. Cumulative live birth rate and assisted reproduction: impact of female age and transfer day. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2014;6:145–49.Google ScholarPubMed
Dar, S, Lazer, T, Shah, PS, Librach, CL. Neonatal outcomes among singleton births after blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:439–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maheshwari, A and Bhattacharya, S. Elective frozen replacement cycles for all: ready for prime time? Hum Reprod 2013;28:69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizos, D, Lonergan, P, Boland, MP et al. Analysis of differential messenger RNA expression between bovine blastocysts produce in different culture systems: implications for blastocyst quality. Biol Reprod 2002; 66:589–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oron, G, Esh-Broder, E, Son, WY. Holzer, H, Tulandi, T. Predictive value of maternal serum human chorionic gonadotropin levels in pregnancies achieved by in vitro fertilization with single cleavage and single blastocyst embryo transfers. Fertil Sterility 2015;103:1526–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Makinen, S, Soderstrom-Anttila, V, Vainio, J, Suikkari, AM, Tuuri, T. Does long in vitro culture promote large for gestational age babies? Hum Reprod 2013;28:828–34.Google Scholar
Zhu, J, Lin, S, Li, M et al. Effect of in vitro culture period on birthweight of singleton newborns. Hum Reprod 2014; 29:448–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, HJ, Lee, JR, Jee, BC, Suh, CS, Kim, S H. Impact of blastocyst transfer on offspring sex ratio and the monozygotic twinning rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2009;91:2381–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Racowsky, C, Jackson, KV, Cekleniak, NA et al. The number of eight-cell embryos is a key determinant for selecting day 3 or day 5 transfer. Fertil Steril 2000; 73:558–64 .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyrou, D, Kolibianakis, EM, Venetis, CA et al. How to improve the probability of pregnancy in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Fertil Steril 2009;91:749–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egea, RR, Puchalt, NG, Escrivá, MM, Varghese, AC. OMICS: Current and future perspectives in reproductive medicine and technology. J Hum Reprod Sci 2014; 7:7392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbi, S, Hamilton, AE, Vo, KC et al. Molecular phenotyping of human endometrium distinguishes menstrual cycle phases and underlying biological processes in normo-ovulatory women. Endocrinology 2006;147:10971121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruiz-Alonso, M, Blesa, D, Simón, C. The genomics of the human endometrium. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1822:1931–42.Google ScholarPubMed

References

Karande, VC, Morris, R, Chapman, C, Rinehart, J, Gleicher, N. Impact of the “physician factor” on pregnancy rates in a large assisted reproductive technology program: do too many cooks spoil the broth? Fertil Steril. 1999 June;71(6):1001–09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Weering, HG, Schats, R, McDonnell, J, Hompes, PG. Ongoing pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization are not dependent on the physician performing the embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2005 February;83(2):316–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salha, OH, Lamb, VK, Balen, AH. A postal survey of embryo transfer practice in the UK. Hum Reprod. 2001 April;16(4):686–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
López, MJ, García, D, Rodríguez, A et al. Individualized embryo transfer training: timing and performance. Hum Reprod. 2014 July;29(7):1432–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eaton, JL1, Zhang, X2, Barnes, RB2. Embryo transfer by reproductive endocrinology fellows vs attending physicians: are live birth rates comparable? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 November;211(5):494.e1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanchin, R, Righini, C, Olivennes, F et al. Uterine contractions at the time of embryo transfer alter pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1998 July;13(7):1968–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woolcott, R, Stanger, J. Potentially important variables identified by transvaginal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1997 May;12(5):963–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nabi, A, Awonuga, A, Birch, H, Barlow, S, Stewart, B. Multiple attempts at embryo transfer: does this affect in-vitro fertilization treatment outcome? Hum Reprod. 1997 June;12(6):1188–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eskandar, MA, Abou-setta, AM, El-Amin, M, Almushait, MA, Sobande, AA. Removal of cervical mucus prior to embryo transfer improves pregnancy rates in women undergoing assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;14:308–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Visschers, BA, Bots, RS, Peeters, MF, Mo l, BW, van Dessel, JH. Removal of cervical mucus: effect on pregnancy rates in IVF/ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;15:310–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katariya, KO, Bates, GW, Robinson, RD, Arthur, NJ, Propst, AM. Does the timing of mock embryo transfer affect in vitro fertilization implantation and pregnancy rates? Fertil Steril 2007;88:1462–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lesny, P, Killick, SR, Tetlow, RL, Robinson, J, Maguiness, SD. Embryo transfer–can we learn anything new from the observation of junctional zone contractions? Hum Reprod. 1998 June;13(6):1540–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovacs, GT. What factors are important for successful embryo transfer after in-vitro fertilization? Hum Reprod. 1999 March;14(3):590–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Coroleu, B, Barri, PN, Carreras, O et al. The influence of the depth of embryo replacement into the uterine cavity on implantation rates after IVF: a controlled, ultrasound-guided study. Hum Reprod. 2002 February;17(2):341–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Weering, HG, Schats, R, McDonnell, J et al. The impact of the embryo transfer catheter on the pregnancy rate in IVF. Hum Reprod. 2002 March;17(3):666–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, JA, Norman, RJ. A randomized controlled trial of a soft double lumen embryo transfer catheter versus a firm single lumen catheter: significant improvements in pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod. 2002 June;17(6):1502–06.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abou-Setta, AM, Al-Inany, HG, Mansour, RT, Serour, GI, Aboulghar, MA. Soft versus firm embryo transfer catheters for assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2005 Nov;20(11):3114–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dorn, C, Reinsberg, J, Schlebusch, H et al. Serum oxytocin concentration during embryo transfer procedure. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1999 November;87(1):7780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tur-Kaspa, I, Yuval, Y, Bider, D et al. Difficult or repeated sequential embryo transfers do not adversely affect in-vitro fertilization pregnancy rates or outcome. Hum Reprod. 1998 September;13(9):2452–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moon, HS, Park, SH, Lee, JO, Kim, KS, Joo, BS. Treatment with piroxicam before embryo transfer increases the pregnancy rate after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2004 October;82(4):816–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ng, EH, Li, RH, Chen, L et al. A randomized double blind comparison of atosiban in patients undergoing IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2014 December;29(12):2687–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sallam, HN, Farrag, A, Ezzeldin, F, Agameya, A, Sallam, AN. The importance of flushing the cervical canal with cluture medium prior to embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2000;74(3)suppl 11: S64S65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derks, RS, Farquhar, C, Mol, BW, Buckingham, K, Heineman, MJ. Techniques for preparation prior to embryo transfer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 October 7;(4):CD007682. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007682.pub2. Review.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, IK, Lindhard, A, Loft, A, Ziebe, S, Andersen, AN. A Wallace malleable stylet for difficult embryo transfer in an in vitro fertilization program: a case-control study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002 February;81(2):133–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groutz, A, Lessing, JB, Wolf, Y et al. Comparison of transmyometrial and transcervical embryo transfer in patients with previously failed in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles and/or cervical stenosis. Fertil Steril. 1997 June;67(6):1073–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharif, K, Afnan, M, Lenton, W et al. Transmyometrial embryo transfer after difficult immediate mock transcervical transfer. Fertil Steril. 1996 May;65(5):1071–74.Google Scholar
García-Velasco, JA, Isaza, V, Martinez-Salazar, J et al. Transabdominal ultrasound-guided embryo transfer does not increase pregnancy rates in oocyte recipients. Fertil Steril. 2002 September;78(3):534–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosmas, IP, Janssens, R, De Munch, L, et al. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer does not offer any benefit in clinical outcome: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2007;22:1327–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckett, WM. A meta-analysis of ultrasound-guided versus clinical touch embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2003 October;80(4):1037–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, J, Buckingham, K, Abou-Setta, AM, Buckett, W. Ultrasound versus ‘clinical touch’ for catheter guidance during embryo transfer in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 January 20;(1):CD006107. ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karimian, L, Rezazadeh, VM, Baghestani, AR, Moeini, A. A prospective randomized comparison of two commercial embryo transfer medium in IVF/ ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod 2004;19 (Suppl1):i52.Google Scholar
Bontekoe, S, Blake, D, Heineman, MJ, Williams, EC, Johnson, N. Adherence compounds in embryo transfer media for assisted reproductive technologies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 July 7;(7):CD007421.Google Scholar
Mansour, R, Tawab, N, Kamal, O et al. Intrauterine injection of human chorionic gonadotropin before embryo transfer significantly improves the implantation and pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a prospective randomized study. Fertil and Steril. 2011;96(6):1370–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ye, H, Hu, J, He, W, Zhang, Y, Li, C. The efficacy of intrauterine injection of human chorionic gonadotropin before embryo transfer in assisted reproductive cycles: Meta-analysis. J Int Med Res. 2015 December;43(6):738–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leong, M, Leung, C, Tucker, M, Wong, C, Chan, H. Ultrasound-assisted embryo transfer. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1986 December;3(6):383–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groeneveld, E, de Leeuw, B, Vergouw, CG et al. Standardization of catheter load speed during embryo transfer: comparison of manual and pump-regulated embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012 February;24(2):163–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abou-Setta, AM, Peters, LR, D’Angelo, A et al. Post-embryo transfer interventions for assisted reproduction technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 August 27;8:CD006567.Google Scholar
Gaikwad, S, Garrido, N, Cobo, A, Pellicer, A, Remohi, J. Bed rest after embryo transfer negatively affects in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2013 September;100(3):729–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baba, K, Ishihara, O, Hayashi, N et al. Where does the embryo implant after embryo transfer in humans? Fertil Steril. 2000 January;73(1):123–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Refaat, B, Dalton, E, Ledger, WL. Ectopic pregnancy secondary to in vitro fertilisation-embryo transfer: pathogenic mechanisms and management strategies. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015 April 12;13:30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Whittingham, DG, Leibo, SP, Mazur, P. Survival of mouse embryos, frozen to −196°C and −289°C. Science 1972;178:411–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahy, GM, MacFarlane, DR, Angell, CA et al. Vitrification as an approach to cryopreservation. Cryobiology 1984;21:407–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fahy, GM Vitrification: a new approach to organ cryopreservation. In: Transplantation: Approaches to Graft Rejection, pp. 305–35, 1986 Ed. Merryman, HT, Alan R Liss, New York.Google Scholar
Seki, S, Mazur, P. The dominance of warming rate over cooling rate in the survival of mouse oocytes subjected to a vitrification procedure. Cryobiology 2009;59:7582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazur, P, Seki, S. Survival of mouse oocytes after being cooled in a vitrification solution to −196°C at 95° to 70,000 °C/min and warmed at 610° to 118,000 °C/min: A new paradigm for cryopreservation by vitrification. Cryobiology 2011;62:17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rall, WF and Fahy, GM. Ice-free cryopreservation of mouse embryos at –196 °C by vitrification. Nature 1985;313:573–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuleshova, L, Gianaroli, L, Magli, C et al. Birth following vitrification of a small number of human oocytes: case report. Hum Reprod 1999;14:3077–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoon, TK, Chung, HM, Lim, JM et al. Pregnancy and delivery of healthy infants developed from vitrified oocytes in a stimulated in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer program. Fertil Steril 2000;74:180–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, DL, Tummon, IS, Hammitt, DG et al. Vitrification versus programmable rate freezing of late stage murine embryos: a randomized comparison prior to application in clinical IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;8:558–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trapphoff, T. Vitrification of oocytes: Imprinting and disturbance in spindle formation and chromosome segregation. In: Vitrification in Assisted Reproduction (2nd. Edition), Chapter 12, p. 105116, 2015 Ed. Tucker, Michael J, Liebermann, Juergen, Informa Healthcare, London, UK.Google Scholar
Takahashi, K, Mukaida, T, Goto, T et al. Perinatal outcome of blastocyst transfer with vitrification using cryoloop: a 4-year follow-up study. Fertil Steril 2005;84:8892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liebermann, J, Tucker, MJ. Comparison of vitrification versus conventional cryopreservation of day 5 and day 6 blastocysts during clinical application. Fertil Steril 2006;86:2026.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liebermann, J Vitrification of human blastocysts: an update. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;19: Suppl 4: 105–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liebermann, J, Nawroth, F, Isachenko, V et al. Potential importance of vitrification in reproductive medicine. Biol Reprod 2002;67:1671–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liebermann, J, Dietl, J, Vanderzwalmen, P et al. Recent developments in human oocyte, embryo and blastocyst vitrification: where are we now? Reprod Biomed Online 2003;7:623–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanderzwalmen, P, Bertin, G, Debauche, Ch et al. Births after vitrification at morula and blastocyst stages: effect of artificial reduction of the blastocoelic cavity before vitrification. Hum Reprod 2002;17:744–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mukaida, T, Oka, C, Goto, T, Takahashi, K. Artificial shrinkage of blastocoeles using either a microneedle or a laser pulse prior to the cooling steps of vitrification improves survival rate and pregnancy outcome of vitrified human blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2006;21:3246–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edashige, K, Kasai, M The movement of water and cryoprotectants in mammalian oocytes and embryos: Membrane permeability and aquaporines. In: Vitrification in Assisted Reproduction (2nd.Edition), Chapter 5, pp. 4754, 2015 Ed. Tucker, Michael J, Liebermann, Juergen, Informa Healthcare, London, UK.Google Scholar
Son, WY, Yoon, SH, Yoon, HJ, Lee, SM, Lim, JH. Pregnancy outcome following transfer of human blastocysts vitrified on electron microscopy grids after induced collapse of the blastocoele. Hum Reprod 2003;18:137–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hiraoka, K, Hiraoka, K, Kinutani, M, Kinutani, K. Blastocoele collapse by micropipetting prior to vitrification gives excellent survival and pregnancy outcomes for human day 5 and 6 expanded blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2004;19:2884–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mukaida, T, Oka, C, Goto, T, Takahashi, K. Artificial shrinkage of blastocoeles using either a micro-needle or a laser pulse prior to the cooling steps of vitrification improves survival rate and pregnancy outcome of vitrified human blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2006:21:3246–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iwayama, H, Hochi, S, Yamashita, M. In vitro and in vivo viability of human blastocysts collapsed by laser pulse or osmotic shocks prior to vitrification. J Assist Reprod Genet 2011;28:355–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hur, YS, Park, JH, Ryu, EK et al. Lim JH Effect of artificial shrinkage on clinical outcome in fresh blastocyst transfer cycle. Clin Exp Repro Med 2011;38:8792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebermann, J, Conaghan, J. ()Artificial collapse prior blastocyst vitrification: Improvement of clinical outcome. The Journal of Clinical Embryology 2013;16(1).Google Scholar
Kazemi, P, Dashtizad, M, Shamsara, M et al. Effect of blastocoel fluid reduction before vitrification on gene expression in mouse blastocysts. Molecular Reproduction and Development 2016;83:735–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larman, MG, Sheehan, CB, Gardner, DK. Calcium-free vitrification reduces cryoprotectant-induced zona pellucida hardening and increases fertilization rates in mouse oocytes. Reproduction 2006;131:5361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conaghan, J, Vaccari, S Development and hatching of human blastocysts after vitrification and warming. In: Vitrification in Assisted Reproduction (2nd. Edition), Chapter 20, pp. 175–84, 2015 Ed. Tucker, Michael J, Liebermann, Juergen, Informa Healthcare, London, UK.Google Scholar
Pinborg, A, Henningsen, AA, Loft, A et al. Large baby syndrome in singleton born after frozen embryo transfers (FET): Is it due the maternal factors or the cryotechnique? Hum Reprod 2014;29:618–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2014 Assisted Reproductive Technology Fertility Clinic Success Rates Report. Atlanta (GA): US Dept. of Health and Human Services; 2016.Google Scholar
Maheshwari, A, Bhattacharya, S. Elective frozen replacement cycles for all: ready for prime time? Hum Reprod. 2013 January;28(1):69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roque, M. Freeze-all policy: is it time for that? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015 February;32(2): 171–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, Aguirre, M, Hudson, C. Clinical rationale for cryopreservation of entire embryo cohorts in lieu of fresh transfer. Fertil Steril. 2014 July;102(1):39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC et al. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril. 2011 August;96(2): 344–48.Google ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC et al. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers in high responders. Fertil Steril. 2011 August;96(2): 516–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Chen, ZJ, Shi, Y, Sun, Y et al. Fresh versus frozen embryos for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2016 August 11;375(6): 523–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maheshwari, A, Pandey, S, Shetty, A, Hamilton, M, Bhattacharya, S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of frozen thawed versus fresh embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012 August;98(2): 368–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wennerholm, UB, Henningsen, AK, Romundstad, LB et al. Perinatal outcomes of children born after frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a Nordic cohort study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod. 2013 September;28(9): 2545–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalra, SK, Ratcliffe, SJ, Coutifaris, C, Molinaro, T, Barnhart, KT. Ovarian stimulation and low birth weight in newborns conceived through in vitro fertilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 October;118(4): 863–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Bedient, CE, Garner, FC. Comparison of birth weights in patients randomly assigned to fresh or frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2016 August;106(2): 317–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodriguez-Purata, J, Lee, J, Whitehouse, M et al. Reproductive outcome is optimized by genomic embryo screening, vitrification, and subsequent transfer into a prepared synchronous endometrium. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 March;33(3): 401–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grifo, J, Kofinas, J, Schoolcraft, WB. The practice of in vitro fertilization according to the published literature. Fertil Steril. 2014 September;102(3): 658–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolibianakis, E, Bourgain, C, Albano, C et al. Effect of ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone, gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonists, and human chorionic gonadotropin on endometrial maturation on the day of oocyte pick-up. Fertil Steril. 2002 November;78(5): 1025–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, Aguirre, M, Ross, R. Contrasting patterns in in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates among fresh autologous, fresh oocyte donor, and cryopreserved cycles with the use of day 5 or day 6 blastocysts may reflect differences in embryo-endometrium synchrony. Fertil Steril. 2008 January;89(1):2026.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, Aguirre, M, Thomas, S. Large blastocyst diameter, early blastulation, and low preovulatory serum progesterone are dominant predictors of clinical pregnancy in fresh autologous cycles. Fertil Steril. 2008 August;90(2): 302–09.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Restrepo, H et al. Matched-cohort comparison of single-embryo transfers in fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2013 February;99(2): 389–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Venetis, CA, Kolibianakis, EM, Bosdou, JK, Tarlatzis, BC. Progesterone elevation and probability of pregnancy after IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 60 000 cycles. Hum Reprod Update. 2013 September–October;19(5): 433–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC et al. Embryo cryopreservation rescues cycles with premature luteinization. Fertil Steril. 2010 February;93(2): 636–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Desai, J et al. The risk of embryo-endometrium asynchrony increases with maternal age after ovarian stimulation and IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 July;33(1):5055.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levi, AJ, Drews, MR, Bergh, PA, Miller, BT, Scott, RT Jr. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation does not adversely affect endometrial receptivity in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2001 October;76(4): 670–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuong, LT, Dang, VQ, Ho, TM et al. Freeze-all versus fresh embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI, a randomised controlled trial (NCT02471573). Fertil Steril. 2018 January106(3):e376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roque, M, Lattes, K, Serra, S et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013 January;99(1): 156–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perkins, KM, Boulet, SL, Kissin, DM, Jamieson, DJ; National ART Surveillance (NASS) Group. Risk of ectopic pregnancy associated with assisted reproductive technology in the United States, 2001–2011. Obstet Gynecol. 2015 January;125(1):7078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, De Leon, L et al. Frozen-thawed embryo transfer is associated with a significantly reduced incidence of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2012 December;98(6): 1490–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mainigi, MA, Olalere, D, Burd, I et al. Peri-implantation hormonal milieu: elucidating mechanisms of abnormal placentation and fetal growth. Biol Reprod. 2014 February 13;90(2):26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shah, PS, Balkhair, T, Ohlsson, A et al. Intention to become pregnant and low birth weight and preterm birth: a systematic review. Matern Child Health J. 2011 February;15(2): 205–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolibianakis, EM, Albano, C, Camus, M et al. Prolongation of the follicular phase in in vitro fertilization results in a lower ongoing pregnancy rate in cycles stimulated with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists. Fertil Steril. 2004 July;82(1): 102–07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, MP, Shen, S, Dobson, AT et al. A quantitative assessment of follicle size on oocyte developmental competence. Fertil Steril. 2008 September;90(3): 684–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cakmak, H, Katz, A, Cedars, MI, Rosen, MP. Effective method for emergency fertility preservation: random-start controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2013 December;100(6): 1673–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuang, Y, Chen, Q, Fu, Y et al. Medroxyprogesterone acetate is an effective oral alternative for preventing premature luteinizing hormone surges in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2015 July;104(1):6270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kol, S. Luteolysis induced by a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is the key to prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2004 January;81(1):15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engmann, L, Benadiva, C, Humaidan, P. GnRH agonist trigger for the induction of oocyte maturation in GnRH antagonist IVF cycles: a SWOT analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 March;32(3): 274–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Youssef, MA, Van der Veen, F, Al-Inany, HG et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus HCG for oocyte triggering in antagonist-assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 October 31;(10):CD008046.Google Scholar
Devroey, P, Polyzos, NP, Blockeel, C. An OHSS-Free clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2011 October;26(10): 2593–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roque, M, Valle, M, Guimarães, F, Sampaio, M, Geber, S. Cost-effectiveness of the freeze-all policy. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2015 August 1;19(3): 125–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papaleo, E, Pagliardini, L, Vanni, VS et al. A direct healthcare cost analysis of the cryopreserved versus fresh transfer policy at the blastocyst stage. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. In press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, Aguirre, M, Hudson, C. Freeze-all at the blastocyst or bipronuclear stage: a randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2015;104: 1138–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Himelstein-Braw, R, Peters, H and Faber, M. Morphological study of the ovaries of leukaemic children. Br J Cancer 1978; 38:8287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, RM, Sutcliffe, SB and Malpas, JS.Cytotoxic-induced ovarian failure in women with Hodgkin’s disease. I. Hormone function. JAMA 1979; 242:1877–81.Google ScholarPubMed
Swerdlow, AJ, Cooke, R, Bates, A et al. Risk of premature menopause after treatment for Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bramswig, JH, Riepenhausen, M and Schellong, G. Parenthood in adult female survivors treated for Hodgkin’s lymphoma during childhood and adolescence: a prospective, longitudinal study. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16:667–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallace, WH, Thomson, AB, Saran, F and Kelsey, TW. Predicting age of ovarian failure after radiation to a field that includes the ovaries. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 62:738–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallace, WH, Critchley, HO and Anderson, RA. Optimizing reproductive outcome in children and young people with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrenz, B, Fehm, T, von Wolff, M et al.Reduced pretreatment ovarian reserve in premenopausal female patients with Hodgkin lymphoma or non-Hodgkin-lymphoma–evaluation by using antimullerian hormone and retrieved oocytes. Fertil Steril 2012; 98:141–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedler, S, Koc, O, Gidoni, Y, Raziel, A and Ron-El, R. Ovarian response to stimulation for fertility preservation in women with malignant disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2012; 97:125–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, RA, Mitchell, RT, Kelsey, TW et al.Cancer treatment and gonadal function: experimental and established strategies for fertility preservation in children and young adults. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015; 3:556–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrek, JA, Naughton, MJ, Case, LD et al.Incidence, time course, and determinants of menstrual bleeding after breast cancer treatment: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24:1045–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chow, EJ, Stratton, KL, Leisenring, WM et al. Pregnancy after chemotherapy in male and female survivors of childhood cancer treated between 1970 and 1999: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study cohort. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17:567–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Letourneau, JM, Ebbel, EE, Katz, PP et al. Acute ovarian failure underestimates age-specific reproductive impairment for young women undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. Cancer 2012; 118:1933–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brook, JD, Gosden, RG and Chandley, AC. Maternal ageing and aneuploid embryos–evidence from the mouse that biological and not chronological age is the important influence. Hum Genet 1984; 66:4145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, RA, Adamson, D, Yellowlees, A et al.Administration of a GnRH agonist during chemotherapy during chemotherapy for breast cancer reduces ovarian toxicity in women aged under 40 years. ESHRE Meeting, Helskinki 2016:P488.Google Scholar
Anderson, RA, Rosendahl, M, Kelsey, TW and Cameron, DA. Pretreatment anti-Mullerian hormone predicts for loss of ovarian function after chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49:3404–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Su, HC, Haunschild, C, Chung, K et al.Prechemotherapy antimullerian hormone, age, and body size predict timing of return of ovarian function in young breast cancer patients. Cancer 2014; 120:3691–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Vos, M, Smitz, J and Woodruff, TK. Fertility preservation in women with cancer. Lancet 2014; 384:1302–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cobo, A, Garcia-Velasco, JA, Coello, A et al. Oocyte vitrification as an efficient option for elective fertility preservation. Fertil Steril 2016; 105:755–64 e758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doyle, JO, Richter, KS, Lim, J et al.Successful elective and medically indicated oocyte vitrification and warming for autologous in vitro fertilization, with predicted birth probabilities for fertility preservation according to number of cryopreserved oocytes and age at retrieval. Fertil Steril 2016; 105:459–66 e452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donnez, J, Dolmans, MM, Pellicer, A et al. Restoration of ovarian activity and pregnancy after transplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue: a review of 60 cases of reimplantation. Fertil Steril 2013; 99:1503–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van der Ven, H, Liebenthron, J, Beckmann, M et al. Ninety-five orthotopic transplantations in 74 women of ovarian tissue after cytotoxic treatment in a fertility preservation network: tissue activity, pregnancy and delivery rates. Hum Reprod 2016; 31:2031–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolmans, MM, Luyckx, V, Donnez, J, Andersen, CY and Greve, T. Risk of transferring malignant cells with transplanted frozen-thawed ovarian tissue. Fertil Steril 2013; 99:1514–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waxman, JH, Ahmed, R, Smith, D et al. Failure to preserve fertility in patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1987; 19:159–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Del Mastro, L, Boni, L, Michelotti, A et al. Effect of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue triptorelin on the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced early menopause in premenopausal women with breast cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 2011; 306 :269–76.Google ScholarPubMed
Moore, HC, Unger, JM, Phillips, KA et al. Goserelin for ovarian protection during breast-cancer adjuvant chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:923–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambertini, M, Ceppi, M, Poggio, F et al. Ovarian suppression using luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists during chemotherapy to preserve ovarian function and fertility of breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis of randomized studies. Ann Oncol 2015; 26:2408–19.Google ScholarPubMed
Leonard, R, Adamson, D, Bertelli, G et al. GnRH agonist for protection against ovarian toxicity during chemotherapy for early breast cancer: the Anglo Celtic Group OPTION trial. Ann Oncol 2017; 28:1811–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demeestere, I, Brice, P, Peccatori, FA et al. No evidence for the benefit of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist in preserving ovarian function and fertility in lymphoma survivors treated with chemotherapy: final long-term report of a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Ferraretti, AP, La Marca A, , Fauser, BC, et.al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England). 2011;26(7): 1616–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bozdag, G, Polat, M, Yarali, I, Yarali, H. Live birth rates in various subgroups of poor ovarian responders fulfilling the Bologna criteria. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2017: S1472–6483(17)30141–4. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.03.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrizio, P, Vaiarelli, A, Levi Setti, PE et al. How to define, diagnose and treat poor responders? Responses from a worldwide survey of IVF clinics. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2015;30: 581–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boza, A, Cakar, E, Boza, B, et.al. Microdose flare-up gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist versus GnRH antagonist protocols in poor ovarian responders undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Journal of Reproduction & Infertility. 2016;17: 163–68.Google ScholarPubMed
Jeve, YB and Bhandari, HM. Effective treatment protocol for poor ovarian response: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2016;9:7081.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turgay Çelik, , Sütçü, HK, Akpak, YK, Akar, ME. A flexible multidose GnRH antagonist versus a microdose flare-up GnRH agonist combined with a flexible multidose GnRH antagonist protocol in poor responders to IVF. BioMed Research International. 2015;2015:970163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, R, Li, H, Li, R, Liu, P, Qiao, J. A comparison among different methods of letrozole combined with gonadotropin in an antagonist protocol and high-dose gonadotropin ovarian stimulation antagonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2016;294: 1091–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surrey, ES. Management of the poor responder: the role of GnRH agonists and antagonists. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 2007;24: 613–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pandian, Z, McTavish, AR, Aucott, L, Hamilton, MP, Bhattacharya, S. Interventions for ‘poor responders’ to controlled ovarian hyper stimulation (COH) in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online). 2010(1):CD004379.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, J, Antaki, R, Kadoch, I-J et al. 450 IU versus 600 IU gonadotropin for controlled ovarian stimulation in poor responders: a randomized controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility.104: 1419–25.Google Scholar
Humaidan, P, Chin, W, Rogoff, D et al. Efficacy and safety of follitropin alfa/lutropin alfa in ART: a randomized controlled trial in poor ovarian responders. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England). 2017;32: 544–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mak, SM, Wong, WY, Chung, HS et al. Effect of mid-follicular phase recombinant LH versus urinary HCG supplementation in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF – a prospect