4.7 Article

Is polycystic ovarian morphology related to a poor oocyte quality after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for intracytoplasmic sperm injection? Results from a prospective, comparative study

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 103, Issue 1, Pages 112-118

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.09.040

Keywords

PCOS; PCOM; IVF; oocyte quality; oocyte morphology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate the relationship between polycystic ovarian morphology (PCOM) and oocyte quality after controlled ovarian stimulation for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Design: Prospective, comparative study with concurrently treated and age-matched controls. Setting: Academic IVF unit of the Lille University Hospital. Patient(s): A total of 194 women were prospectively included before their first IVF-ICSI attempt for exclusive male infertility. They were classified into PCOM (n = 97) or control groups (n = 97) according to their follicle number per ovary. The nuclear maturation and morphologic aspects of 1,013 oocytes from PCOM patients were assessed and compared with those of 774 oocytes from controls. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Rate of metaphase II (MII) and morphologically abnormal oocytes. Result(s): The mean number of total and MII oocytes retrieved was significantly higher in the PCOM group. The rate of MII and morphologically abnormal oocytes was equivalent between the two groups. The mean number of embryos was significantly higher in the PCOM group. However, the percentage of top-quality embryos on day 3 was similar between the two groups. The implantation and clinical pregnancy rates were significantly higher in the PCOM group. Conclusion(s): Polycystic ovarian morphology does not have a negative impact on the quality of oocytes and embryos or the outcome of IVF-ICSI. (C)2015 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available