4.6 Editorial Material

Decisions for the IVF laboratory: comparative analysis of embryo culture incubators

Journal

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
Volume 28, Issue 5, Pages 535-547

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.01.004

Keywords

benchtop; blastocyst; box; embryo; incubator; topload

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Incubators in the IVF laboratory play a pivotal role in providing a stable and appropriate culture environment required for optimizing embryo development and clinical outcomes. With technological advances, several types of incubators are now available and careful consideration is required for selection. Examination of variables, such as recovery/stabilization of temperature, gas atmosphere and humidity, as well as understanding various approaches utilized by each device to regulate these variables, is critical. Additionally, a comprehensive examination of clinical studies that compare various incubators may provide insight into their efficacy. Other factors, both technical and practical, must also be considered when selecting an incubator. Importantly, proper management, including patient volume and workflow, is paramount in optimizing function of any incubator, regardless of the technology incorporated. This review highlights incubator function and reviews key environmental variables controlled and the technology utilized in various units. Additionally, existing comparative studies focused on incubator recovery and clinical outcomes are critically analysed. Finally, strategies employed for incubator management, as well as future potential incubator improvements are discussed. While existing reports indicate that smaller benchtop/topload incubators provide faster recovery of environmental variables, there is no clear advantage of any particular incubator based on clinical outcomes. (c) 2014, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available