Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine

  • 제39권3호
  • /
  • Pages.118-124
  • /
  • 2012
  • /
  • 2233-8233(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-8241(eISSN)
대한생식의학회 (The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Outcomes of preimplantation genetic diagnosis using either zona drilling with acidified Tyrode's solution or partial zona dissection

  • Kim, Hyun Jung (Institute of Fertility and Genetics, Hamchoon Women's Clinic) ;
  • Kim, Chung Hyon (Institute of Fertility and Genetics, Hamchoon Women's Clinic) ;
  • Lee, Soo Min (Institute of Fertility and Genetics, Hamchoon Women's Clinic) ;
  • Choe, Seung Ah (Institute of Fertility and Genetics, Hamchoon Women's Clinic) ;
  • Lee, Joong Yeup (Institute of Fertility and Genetics, Hamchoon Women's Clinic) ;
  • Jee, Byung Chul (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Hwang, Doyeong (Institute of Fertility and Genetics, Hamchoon Women's Clinic) ;
  • Kim, Ki Chul (Institute of Fertility and Genetics, Hamchoon Women's Clinic)
  • 투고 : 2012.08.01
  • 심사 : 2012.09.14
  • 발행 : 2012.09.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: To review the outcomes of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) using zona drilling with acid Tyrode's solution (chemical zona pellucida drilling, chemical ZD) and those of partial zona dissection (PZD). Methods: Clinical outcomes of seventy-one couples undergoing 85 PGD cycles from January 2005 to December 2010 were included. Blastocyst formation and the hatching rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, implantation rate, and fetal gender ratio of the PZD and chemical ZD groups were compared. Results: Application of PZD resulted in a significantly higher rate of clinical pregnancy (40.7% vs. 15.4%, p=0.022), ongoing pregnancy (35.6% vs. 11.5%, p=0.023), and implantation (18.1% vs. 5.7%, p=0.007) compared with chemical ZD. Among non-transferred embryos, the rate of blastocyst formation on day 5 (49.1% vs. 39.5%, p=0.016) and hatching on day 6 (47.2% vs. 26.5%, p<0.001) were also significantly higher in the PZD group. Conclusion: The mechanical zona dissection (ZD) method showed better outcomes than chemical ZD in terms of the blastocyst development and pregnancy rate. In this study, the fact that chemical ZD was conducted in different period from mechanical method should be considered in interpreting the result.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Fischer J, Colls P, Escudero T, Munne S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) improves pregnancy outcome for translocation carriers with a history of recurrent losses. Fertil Steril 2010;94:283-9.
  2. Keymolen K, Staessen C, Verpoest W, Michiels A, Bonduelle M, Haentjens P, et al. A proposal for reproductive counselling in carriers of Robertsonian translocations: 10 years of experience with preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 2009;24:2365-71.
  3. Otani T, Roche M, Mizuike M, Colls P, Escudero T, Munne S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis significantly improves the pregnancy outcome of translocation carriers with a history of recurrent miscarriage and unsuccessful pregnancies. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;13:869-74.
  4. Gordon JW, Gang I. Use of zona drilling for safe and effective biopsy of murine oocytes and embryos. Biol Reprod 1990;42:869-76.
  5. Krzyminska UB, Lutjen J, O'Neill C. Assessment of the viability and pregnancy potential of mouse embryos biopsied at different preimplantation stages of development. Hum Reprod 1990;5:203-8.
  6. Licciardi F, Gonzalez A, Tang YX, Grifo J, Cohen J, Neev Y. Laser ablation of the mouse zona pellucida for blastomere biopsy. J Assist Reprod Genet 1995;12:462-6.
  7. Tarin JJ, Conaghan J, Winston RM, Handyside AH. Human embryo biopsy on the 2nd day after insemination for preimplantation diagnosis: removal of a quarter of embryo retards cleavage. Fertil Steril 1992;58:970-6.
  8. Wilton LJ, Trounson AO. Biopsy of preimplantation mouse embryos: development of micromanipulated embryos and proliferation of single blastomeres in vitro. Biol Reprod 1989;40:145-52.
  9. Geber S, Bossi R, Lisboa CB, Valle M, Sampaio M. Laser confers less embryo exposure than acid tyrode for embryo biopsy in preimplantation genetic diagnosis cycles: a randomized study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2011;9:58.
  10. Tangchaisin P, Pruksananonda K, Tirawatnapong T, Yodyingyuad V, Virutamasen P. Effects of different biopsy methods on the development of preimplantation mouse embryos, in vitro and in vivo: implication for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. J Med Assoc Thai 1999;82:1142-8.
  11. Thompson LA, Srikantharajah A, Hamilton MP, Templeton A. A comparison of the effects of different biopsy strategies on the post-thaw survival of 8-cell-stage mouse embryos: implications for preimplantation diagnosis. Hum Reprod 1995;10:659-63.
  12. Chatzimeletiou K, Morrison EE, Panagiotidis Y, Prapas N, Prapas Y, Rutherford AJ, et al. Comparison of effects of zona drilling by non-contact infrared laser or acid Tyrode's on the development of human biopsied embryos as revealed by blastomere viability, cytoskeletal analysis and molecular cytogenetics. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;11:697-710.
  13. Joris H, De Vos A, Janssens R, Devroey P, Liebaers I, Van Steirteghem A. Comparison of the results of human embryo biopsy and outcome of PGD after zona drilling using acid Tyrode medium or a laser. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1896-902.
  14. Han TS, Sagoskin AW, Graham JR, Tucker MJ, Liebermann J. Laser- assisted human embryo biopsy on the third day of development for preimplantation genetic diagnosis: two successful case reports. Fertil Steril 2003;80:453-5.
  15. Balaban B, Urman B, Alatas C, Mercan R, Mumcu A, Isiklar A. A comparison of four different techniques of assisted hatching. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1239-43.
  16. Verlinsky Y, Kuliev A. An atlas of preimplantaion genetic diagnosis. New York: Parthenon Publishing Group; 2000.
  17. Depypere HT, Leybaert L. Intracellular pH changes during zona drilling. Fertil Steril 1994;61:319-23.
  18. Goossens V, De Rycke M, De Vos A, Staessen C, Michiels A, Verpoest W, et al. Diagnostic efficiency, embryonic development and clinical outcome after the biopsy of one or two blastomeres for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod 2008;23:481-92.
  19. Eaton JL, Hacker MR, Harris D, Thornton KL, Penzias AS. Assessment of day-3 morphology and euploidy for individual chromosomes in embryos that develop to the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 2009;91:2432-6.
  20. Munne S, Alikani M, Tomkin G, Grifo J, Cohen J. Embryo morphology, developmental rates, and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities. Fertil Steril 1995;64:382-91.
  21. Sandalinas M, Sadowy S, Alikani M, Calderon G, Cohen J, Munne S. Developmental ability of chromosomally abnormal human embryos to develop to the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod 2001;16:1954-8.
  22. Evsikov S, Cieslak J, Verlinsky Y. Effect of chromosomal translocations on the development of preimplantation human embryos in vitro. Fertil Steril 2000;74:672-7.
  23. Chen SU, Chao KH, Wu MY, Chen CD, Ho HN, Yang YS. The simplified two-pipette technique is more efficient than the conventional three-pipette method for blastomere biopsy in human embryos. Fertil Steril 1998;69:569-75.
  24. Harton GL, Magli MC, Lundin K, Montag M, Lemmen J, Harper JC, et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium/Embryology Special Interest Group: best practice guidelines for polar body and embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS). Hum Reprod 2011;26:41-6.
  25. Malter HE, Cohen J. Blastocyst formation and hatching in vitro following zona drilling of mouse and human embryos. Gamete Res 1989;24:67-80.
  26. Montag M, van der Ven K, Dorn C, van der Ven H. Outcome of laser- assisted polar body biopsy and aneuploidy testing. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;9:425-9.
  27. Nijs M, Camus M, Van Steirteghem AC. Evaluation of different biopsy methods of blastomeres from 2-cell mouse embryos. Hum Reprod 1988;3:999-1003.
  28. Cohen J, Talansky BF, Malter HE, Grifo J. Micromanipulation of human gametes and embryos. New York: Raven Press; 1992.
  29. Nakayama T, Fujiwara H, Tastumi K, Fujita K, Higuchi T, Mori T. A new assisted hatching technique using a piezo-micromanipulator. Fertil Steril 1998;69:784-8.
  30. Cieslak J, Ivakhnenko V, Wolf G, Sheleg S, Verlinsky Y. Three-dimensional partial zona dissection for preimplantation genetic diagnosis and assisted hatching. Fertil Steril 1999;71:308-13.
  31. Lyu QF, Wu LQ, Li YP, Pan Q, Liu DE, Xia K, et al. An improved mechanical technique for assisted hatching. Hum Reprod 2005;20:1619-23.
  32. Roudebush WE, Kim JG, Minhas BS, Dodson MG. Survival and cell acquisition rates after preimplantation embryo biopsy: use of two mechanical techniques and two mouse strains. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:1084-90.
  33. Boada M, Carrera M, De La Iglesia C, Sandalinas M, Barri PN, Veiga A. Successful use of a laser for human embryo biopsy in preimplantation genetic diagnosis: report of two cases. J Assist Reprod Genet 1998;15:302-7.
  34. Jones AE, Wright G, Kort HI, Straub RJ, Nagy ZP. Comparison of laser-assisted hatching and acidified Tyrode's hatching by evaluation of blastocyst development rates in sibling embryos: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 2006;85:487-91.
  35. Malter HE, Schimmel T, Cohen J. Zona dissection by infrared laser: developmental consequences in the mouse, technical considerations, and controlled clinical trial. Reprod Biomed Online 2001;3:117-23.
  36. Mantoudis E, Podsiadly BT, Gorgy A, Venkat G, Craft IL. A comparison between quarter, partial and total laser assisted hatching in selected infertility patients. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2182-6.

피인용 문헌

  1. A simple, less invasive stripper micropipetter-based technique for day 3 embryo biopsy vol.2, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40738-016-0027-4
  2. Expression of the genes for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ, cyclooxygenase-2, and proinflammatory cytokines in granulosa cells from women with polycystic ovary syndrome vol.44, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2017.44.3.146
  3. Revisiting embryo assisted hatching approaches: a systematic review of the current protocols vol.35, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1118-4
  4. Assisted hatching (literature review) vol.25, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.17116/repro20192504189