Purpose: Since cytoplasmic pitting is a morphological phenomenon discussed controversially, this study was set up in order to assess the actual influence of cytoplasmic pitting on treatment outcome.
Methods: Four hundred and one patients undergoing 484 consecutive treatment cycles were evaluated retrospectively in order to assess the actual influence of pitting on treatment outcome.
Results: Pitting was found to be reduced in single culture as compared to group culture (p < 0.01). No correlation of cytoplasmic texture with rates of implantation and pregnancy could be observed, but a significantly higher proportion (p < 0.05) of gestational sacs vanished in the group with exclusive transfer of pitted embryos compared to the unaffected group. Obstetric and perinatal outcome was not affected.
Conclusions: It is possible that culture conditions favor cytoplasmic pitting, a morphological phenomenon which, in the extreme case, may result in early loss of gestation sacs.
Cytoplasmic pitting clinical pregnancy rate culture conditions early pregnancy loss implantation rate
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Tews G: Selection based on morphological assessment of oocytes and embryos at different stages of preimplantation development: A review. Hum Reprod Update 2003;9:251–262PubMedGoogle Scholar
Scott LA: The biological basis of non-invasive strategies for selection of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update 2003;9:237–249PubMedGoogle Scholar
Xia P: Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: Correlation of oocyte grade based on polar body, perivitelline space and cytoplasmic inclusions with fertilization rate and embryo quality. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1750–1755PubMedGoogle Scholar
Ebner T, Yaman C, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Feichtinger O, Tews G: Prognostic value of first polar body morphology on fertilization rate and embryo quality in intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 2000;15:427–430PubMedGoogle Scholar
Scott LA, Smith S: The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 1998;13:1003–1013PubMedGoogle Scholar
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;14:1318–1323PubMedGoogle Scholar
Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D, Valkenburg M, Van de Meersche M, Ryckaert G, Eestermans W, Gerris J: Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2345–2349PubMedGoogle Scholar
Rijnders PM, Jansen CAM: The predictive value of day 3 embryo morphology regarding blastocyst formation, pregnancy and implantation rate after day 5 transfer following in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1998;3:2869–2873Google Scholar
Graham J, Han T, Porter R, Levy M, Stillman R, Tucker MJ: Day 3 morphology is a poor predictor of blastocyst quality in extended culture. Fertil Steril 2000;74:495–497PubMedGoogle Scholar
Milki AA, Hinckley MD, Gebhardt J, Dasig D, Westphal LM, Behr B: Accuracy of day 3 criteria for selecting the best embryo. Fertil Steril 2002; 77: 1191–1195.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Wiemer KE, Garrisi J, Steuerwald N, Alikani M, Reing AM, Ferrara TA, Noyes N, Cohen J: Beneficial aspects of co-culture with assisted hatching when applied to multiple-failure in-vitro fertilization patients. Hum Reprod 1996;11:2429–2433PubMedGoogle Scholar
Desai NN, Goldstein J, Rowland DY, Goldfarb JM: Morphological evaluation of human embryos and derivation of an embryo quality scoring system specific for day 3 embryos: A preliminary study. Hum Reprod 2000;15, 2190–2196PubMedGoogle Scholar
Biggers JD, Racowsky C: The development of fertilized human ova to the blastocyst stage in KSOMAA medium: Is a two-step protocol necessary? Reprod BioMed Online 2002;5:133–140PubMedGoogle Scholar
Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Minasi MG, Iacobelli M, Martinez F, Tesarik J, Greco E: Blastomere cytoplasmic granularity is unrelated to developmental potential of day 3 human embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet 2003;20:314–317PubMedGoogle Scholar
Veeck LL: An Atlas of Human Gametes and Conceptuses, New York, London, Parthenon Publishing, 1999, 64 p.Google Scholar
Cooke S, Quinn P, Kime L, Ayres C, Tyler JP, Driscoll GL: Improvement in early human embryo development using new formulation sequential stage-specific culture media. Fertil Steril 2002;78:1254–1260PubMedGoogle Scholar
Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Gaiswinkler U, Wiesinger R, Puchner M, Tews G: Presence of a cytoplasmic halo at zygote stage but not type and extension of the same has a significant influence on preimplantation development and implantation behavior. Hum Reprod 2003;18:2406–2412PubMedGoogle Scholar
Ebner T, Yaman C, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Jesacher K, Tews G: A prospective study on oocyte survival rate after ICSI: Influence of injection technique and morphological features. J Assist Reprod Genet 2001;18:601–606Google Scholar
Tesarik J, Kopecny V, Plachot M, Mandelbaum J: Early morphological signs of embryonic genome expression in human preimplantation development as revealed by quantitative electron microscopy. Dev Biol 1988;128:15–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
Gardner DK, Lane M: Amino acids and ammonium regulate the development of mouse embryos in culture. Biol Reprod 1993;48:377–385PubMedGoogle Scholar
Lane M, Gardner DK: Removal of embryo-toxic ammonium from the culture medium by in situ enzymatic conversion to glutamate. J Exp Zool 1995;271:356–363PubMedGoogle Scholar