Pregnancy Rate and Pregnancy Outcome Associated with Laboratory Evaluation of Spermatozoa, Oocytes, and Pre-Embryos

  • Lucinda L. Veeck


There are very few non-invasive methods currendy available for determining the quality of gametes and pre-implantation embryos. Because sperm collection is easier than oocyte collection, and because the numbers of available sperm are so far in excess of available oocytes, the opportunity to examine large populations of sperm is possible within an in vitro fertilization setting. It follows that invasive testing may be performed on sperm without fear of compromising a given patient’s chances for establishing pregnancy. Unfortunately, embryologists must rely primarily on gross morphology and developmental rate in order to make comparable assessments of the oocyte and developing conceptus; both an unreliable and uninformative means, yet the only means possible when the desire is to reduce potential danger to the oocyte and pre-embryo. Despite these limitations, various associations may be noted between the factors of gross analysis and the ability to contribute to ongoing pregnancy. While these factors may differ between sperm and oocytes, the additive effect of each factor may build a base upon which to estimate the potential for success.


Pregnancy Rate Embryo Transfer Polar Body Sperm Concentration Sperm Morphology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    L. J. Burkman, Experimental approaches to evaluation and enhancement of sperm function, in: “In Vitro Fertilization — Norfolk,” H.W. Jones Jr., G.S. Jones, G.D. Hodgen, and Z. Rosenwaks, eds., Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, Maryland, 201 (1986).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. A. Acosta, T. Kruger, R. J. Swanson, K. F. Simmons, S. Oehninger, L. L. Veeck, P. Hague, P. Pleban, M. Morshedi, S. Ackerman, Role of IVF in male infertility, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 541:297 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. F. Kruger, A. A. Acosta, K. F. Simmons, R. J. Swanson, J. F. Matta, L. L. Veeck, M. Morshedi, and S. Brugo, A new method of evaluating sperm morphology with predictive value for IVF, Urology, 30:248 (1987).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Oehninger, A. A. Acosta, T. Kruger, L. L. Veeck, J. Flood, and H. W. Jones Jr., Failure of fertilization in in vitro fertilization: The “occult” male factor, J. In Vitro Fert. Embryo Transfer, 5:181 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. C. Appleton, and S. B. Fishel, Morphology and x-ray microprobe analysis of spermatozoa from fertile and infertile men in in vitro fertilization, J. In Vitro Fert. Embryo Transfer, 1:188 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. H. Martin, Comparison of chromosomal abnormalities in hamster egg and human sperm pronuclei, Biol. Reprod., 31:819 (1984).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. S. McDowell, Preparation of spermatozoa for insemination in vitro, in: “In Vitro Fertilization- Norfolk,” H.W. Jones Jr., G.S. Jones, G.D. Hodgen, and Z. Rosenwaks, eds., Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, Maryland, 162 (1986).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. A. Acosta, C. F. Chillik, S. Brugo, S. Ackerman, R. J. Swanson, P. Pleban, J. Yuan, and D. Hague, In vitro fertilization and the male factor, Urology, 28:1 (1986).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. T. Scott, S. Oehninger, R. Menkveld, L. L. Veeck, and A. A. Acosta, Critical assessment of sperm morphology before and after double swim-up preparation for in vitro fertilization (IVF), In press, Arch. Androl.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Franken, S. Oehninger, L. Burkman, C. C. Coddington, T. F. Kruger, Z. Rosenwaks, A. A. Acosta, G. D. Hodgen, The hemizona assay (HZA): A predictor of human sperm fertilizing potential in IVF treatment, J. In Vitro Fert. Embryo Transfer, 6:44 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Oehninger, C. C. Coddington, R. Scott, D. Franken, L. Burkman, A. A. Acosta, and G. D. Hodgen, Hemizona assay: Assessment of sperm dysfunction and predictor of in vitro fertilization outcome, Fertil. Steril., 51 (1989).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    L. J. Veeck, Oocyte assessment and biological performance, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 541:259 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    V. N. Bolton, S. M. Hawes, C. T.Taylor, J. H. Parsons, Development of spare human preimplantation embryos in vitro, An analysis of the correlations among gross morphology, cleavage rates, and development to the blastocyst, J. In Vitro Fert. Embryo Transfer, 6:30 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. M. Cummins, T. M. Breen, K. L. Harrison, J. M. Shaw, L. M. Wilson, J. F. Hennessey, A formula for scoring human embryo growth rates in in vitro fertilization: It’s value in predicting pregnancy and in comparison with visual estimates of embryo quality, J. In Vitro Fert. Embryo Transfer, 3:284 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. Puissant, M. Rysselberge, P. Barlow, J. Deweze, and F. Leroy, Embryo scoring as a prognostic tool in IVF treatment, Hum. Reprod., 2:705 (1987).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Claman, A. D. Randall, M. M. Seibel, T. Wang, S. P. Oskowitz, and M I. Taymoor, The impact of embryo quality and quantity on implantation and the establishment of viable pregnancies, J. In Vitro Fert. Embryo Transfer, 4:218 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Plachot, J. De Grouchy, A. M. Junca, J. Mandelbaum, J. Salat- Baroux, and J. Cohen, Chromosomal analysis of human oocytes and embryos in an in vitro fertilization program, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 541:384 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. H. Martin, M. Mahadevan, P. J. Taylor, K. Hildebrand, L. Long- Simpson, D. Peterson, J. Yamamoto, and J. Fleetham, Chromosomal analysis of unfertilized human oocytes, J. Reprod. Fertil., 78:673 (1986).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    H. Wramsby, K. Fredga, and P. Liedholm, Chromosomal analysis of human oocytes recovered from preovulatory follicles in stimulated cycles, New Engl. J. Med., 316:121 (1987).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    H. Wramsby, Chromosomal analysis of preovulatory human oocytes and oocytes failing to cleave following insemination in vitro. Annal of the New York Academy of Sciences, 541:228 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucinda L. Veeck
    • 1
  1. 1.Jones Institute for Reproductive MedicineEastern Virginia Medical SchoolNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations