4.4 Article

Improved maturation competence of ovarian tissue oocytes using a biphasic in vitro maturation system for patients with gynecological malignancy: a study on sibling oocytes

期刊

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
卷 38, 期 6, 页码 1331-1340

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02118-z

关键词

IVM; Fertility preservation; Gynecological cancer; CNP; Oocyte vitrification

资金

  1. Russian Federation [kappa3244.2019.7]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of CAPA-IVM system improved the meiotic maturation rate of ovarian tissue oocytes compared to standard IVM and resulted in lower degeneration after IVM. The study suggests that fertility preservation programs could become more efficient using IVM after capacitation culture.
Purpose To investigate the developmental competence of ovarian tissue oocytes from patients with gynecological tumors using a biphasic in vitro maturation system with capacitation (CAPA-IVM) in comparison with standard IVM. Methods This sibling pilot study included 210 oocytes in 10 patients with gynecological malignancies. After ovariectomies, ovaries were cut into even halves and immature cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs) were retrieved from the ovarian tissue. COCs were separately cultured in either a biphasic CAPA-IVM system for 53 h or in standard IVM for 48 h. After IVM, all COCs were denuded and mature oocytes were either vitrified (N=5) or used for ICSI (N=5). Embryos were cultured for 5-6 days and obtained blastocysts were vitrified. Results Use of the CAPA-IVM system led to a higher meiotic maturation rate in ovarian tissue oocytes (OTO) compared to standard IVM (56 vs 35%, p=0.0045) and had a tendency to result in lower degeneration after IVM. Only the CAPA-IVM method supported blastocyst formation. Conclusions The biphasic in vitro maturation system improved the competence of OTO in comparison to the standard IVM method. The study suggests that fertility preservation programs could become more efficient using IVM after capacitation culture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据