Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A shared egg donor program: which is the minimum number of oocytes to be allocated?

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate which is the minimum number of oocytes to be allocated to each recipient in a shared egg donor program.

Methods

We analyzed 953 recipients that received at least 4 metaphase II (MII) oocytes in the period 2006–2008. We retrospectively divided the recipients according to the number of MII oocytes actually received.

Results

No statistically significant differences were found among the analyzed strata in clinical pregnancy rate (A:43.7%; B:45.6%; C:48.6%; D:45.5%; E:53%, P = NS) and miscarriage rate. However, the rate of top quality transferred embryos, and the embryo freezing rate were significantly higher among those recipients that received 7 or more mature eggs.

Conclusions

After a large sample was analyzed, no significant differences in fresh embryo transfer outcome were encountered when a different number of oocytes was allocated. A minimum of 4 MII oocytes seems to achieve satisfactory pregnancy rates in our shared egg donor program.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bustillo M, Buster JE, Cohen SW, Hamilton F, Thorneycroft IH, Simon JA, et al. Delivery of a healthy infant following nonsurgical ovum transfer. JAMA. 1984;251(7):889.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Navot D, Laufer N, Kopolovic J, Rabinowitz R, Birkenfeld A, Lewin A, et al. Artificially induced endometrial cycles and establishment of pregnancies in the absence of ovaries. N Engl J Med. 1986;314(13):806–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Buster JE, Bustillo M, Thorneycroft I, Simon JA, Boyers SP, Marshall JR, et al. Non-surgical transfer of an in-vivo fertilised donated ovum to an infertility patient. Lancet. 1983;1(8328):816–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Registro Latinoamericano de Reproducción Asistida. Registro Latinoamericano (RLA). 2007 [updated 2007; cited 23/10/2009]; Available from: http://www.redlara.com/esp/reg_2007.asp.

  5. Nyboe Andersen A, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S, Ferraretti AP, Kupka MS, de Mouzon J, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and intrauterine inseminations in Europe, 2005: results generated from European registers by ESHRE: ESHRE. The European IVF Monitoring Programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod. 2009;24(6):1267–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. SART. Clinical Summary Report (2007). 2009 [updated 2009; cited 13/01/2010]; Available from: https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?ClinicPKID=0.

  7. Glujovsky D, Fiszbajn G, Lipowicz R, Lavolpe M, Sueldo C. Practice of sharing donated oocytes among several recipients. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(6):1786–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moomjy M, Mangieri R, Beltramone F, Cholst I, Veeck L, Rosenwaks Z. Shared oocyte donation: society’s benefits. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(6):1165–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Blyth E. Subsidized IVF: the development of ‘egg sharing’ in the United Kingdom. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(12):3254–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Oyesanya OA, Olufowobi O, Ross W, Sharif K, Afnan M. Prognosis of oocyte donation cycles: a prospective comparison of the in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles of recipients who used shared oocytes versus those who used altruistic donors. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(3):930–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Patrizio P, Sakkas D. From oocyte to baby: a clinical evaluation of the biological efficiency of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(4):1061–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Inge GB, Brinsden PR, Elder KT. Oocyte number per live birth in IVF: were Steptoe and Edwards less wasteful? Hum Reprod. 2005;20(3):588–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mullin CM, Fino ME, Talebian S, Keegan D, Grifo JA, Licciardi F. Comparison of pregnancy outcomes in anonymous shared versus exclusive donor oocyte in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2009;93(2):574–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kolibianakis EM, Tournaye H, Osmanagaoglu K, Camus M, Van Waesberghe L, Van Steirteghem A, et al. Outcome for donors and recipients in two egg-sharing policies. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(1):69–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. ASRM. Guidelines for gamete and embryo donation. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(5):S38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cohen MA, Lindheim SR, Sauer MV. Donor age is paramount to success in oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(11):2755–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Shulman A, Frenkel Y, Dor J, Levran D, Shiff E, Maschiach S. The best donor. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(10):2493–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Harris SE, Faddy M, Levett S, Sharma V, Gosden R. Analysis of donor heterogeneity as a factor affecting the clinical outcome of oocyte donation. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2002;5(4):193–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mirkin S, Gimeno TG, Bovea C, Stadtmauer L, Gibbons WE, Oehninger S. Factors associated with an optimal pregnancy outcome in an oocyte donation program. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003;20(10):400–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Letterie G, Marshall L, Angle M. The relationship of clinical response, oocyte number, and success in oocyte donor cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2005;22(3):115–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. ASRM. Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(5 Suppl):S51–2.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sauer MV, Kavic SM. Oocyte and embryo donation 2006: reviewing two decades of innovation and controversy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12(2):153–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Studies in Gynecology and Reproduction (CEGYR), Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Demian Glujovsky, Marcelo Dominguez, Gabriel Fiszbajn, Sergio Papier, Mariano Lavolpe & Carlos Sueldo

  2. CEGyR, Viamonte 1432, Buenos Aires, C1055ABB, Argentina

    Demian Glujovsky

Authors
  1. Demian Glujovsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcelo Dominguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gabriel Fiszbajn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sergio Papier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mariano Lavolpe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Carlos Sueldo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Demian Glujovsky.

Additional information

Capsule Allocating a minimum of 4 MII oocytes seems to achieve satisfactory pregnancy rates in shared egg donation cycles.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Glujovsky, D., Dominguez, M., Fiszbajn, G. et al. A shared egg donor program: which is the minimum number of oocytes to be allocated?. J Assist Reprod Genet 28, 263–267 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-010-9511-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-010-9511-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation