Prognostic value of oocyte denudation on fertilization and embryo quality in patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection

Abstract

A retrospective analysis of data obtained from 2034 oocytes collected from 157 patients with unexplained infertility was performed. Two groups were planned according to the diameters of flexible polycarbonate pipettes used in denudation. Group 1: Partial denudation of oocytes using a 140µm diameter pipette and Group 2: Complete denudation of oocytes using a 135µm diameter pipette. The data obtained were evaluated using statistical methods. It was aimed to investigate the possible effects of denudation on oocyte maturation, oocyte degeneration rate, fertilization rate, embryo quality, embryo development rate, abortion and live birth rates. After partial and complete denudation, there was no statistically significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 in terms of oocyte maturation, normal fertilization rate, early embryonal development, embryo transfer numbers, blastocyst stage embryo numbers and morphology. In the third day embryos obtained from Group 2 oocytes, the rate of blastomeres incompatible with the day of development, the rate of degeneration among oocytes and the number of patients whose pregnancies ended due to pathologic reasons were found to be high (p=0.036, p=0.037, p=0.035). Live birth rate was higher in pregnancies developing from group 1 oocytes (p=0.039). It was concluded that granulosa cells left around the oocyte by pipettes with standardized diameter opening during denudation increased the success of live birth.

Keywords

• Granulosa cells
• cumulus
• intracytoplasmic sperm injection

References

1. 1. Vander Borght M, Wyns C. Fertility and infertility: Definition and epidemiology. Clin Biochem. 2018;62:2-10. Epub 20180316. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.03.012. PubMed PMID: 29555319.
2. 2. Ateş BA, Toraman A, Karatopuk D. Üniversite hastanesindeki tüp bebek ünitesinin maliyet analizi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 2018(31):87-98.
3. 3. Baykal B. Üremeye yardımcı tedavi (ÜYTE) uygulamalarında maliyet analizi: Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü; 2010.
4. 4. Gnoth C, Maxrath B, Skonieczny T, Friol K, Godehardt E, Tigges J. Final ART success rates: a 10 years survey. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(8):2239-46. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der178.
5. 5. Barnhart KT. Live birth is the correct outcome for clinical trials evaluating therapy for the infertile couple. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(5):1205-8. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.03.026. PubMed PMID: 24786740; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4040520.
6. 6. Guerif F, Le Gouge A, Giraudeau B, Poindron J, Bidault R, Gasnier O, et al. Limited value of morphological assessment at days 1 and 2 to predict blastocyst development potential: a prospective study based on 4042 embryos. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(7):1973-81. Epub 20070511. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dem100. PubMed PMID: 17496054.
7. 7. Plachot M, Belaisch-Allart J, Mayenga JM, Chouraqui A, Serkine AM, Tesquier L. Blastocyst stage transfer: the real benefits compared with early embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2000;15 Suppl 6:24-30. PubMed PMID: 11261480.
8. 8. Ma X, Wang J, Shi Y, Tan J, Guan Y, Sun Y, et al. Effect of single blastocyst-stage versus single cleavage-stage embryo transfer on cumulative live births in women with good prognosis undergoing in vitro fertilization: Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):7747. Epub 20240905. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024- 52008-y. PubMed PMID: 39237545; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC11377718.

9. 9. Mizuno S, Ishikawa Y, Matsumoto H, Sato M, Ida M, Fukuda A, et al. The timing of cumulus cell removal for intracytoplasmic sperm injection influences the capability of embryonic development. Reprod Med Biol. 2019;18(1):111-7. Epub 20181120. doi: 10.1002/rmb2.12257. PubMed PMID: 30655729; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6332823.
10. 10. Shoukir Y, Chardonnens D, Campana A, Sakkas D. Blastocyst development from supernumerary embryos after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a paternal influence? Hum Reprod. 1998;13(6):1632-7. doi: 10.1093/humrep/13.6.1632. PubMed PMID: 9688404.
11. 11. Miller JE, Smith TT. The effect of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and semen parameters on blastocyst development in vitro. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(5):918-24. doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.5.918. PubMed PMID: 11331638.
12. 12. Griffiths TA, Murdoch AP, Herbert M. Embryonic development is compromised by the ICSI procedure. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(7):1592-6. doi: DOI 10.1093/humrep/15.7.1592. PubMed PMID: WOS:000088251800029.
13. 13. Palermo GD, Cohen J, Rosenwaks Z. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: A powerful tool to overcome fertilization failure. Fertility and Sterility. 1996;65(5):899-908. PubMed PMID: WOS:A1996UF68000001.
14. 14. Humaidan P, Bredkjaer HE, Bungum L, Bungum M, Grondahl ML, Westergaard L, et al. GnRH agonist (buserelin) or hCG for ovulation induction in GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(5):1213-20. Epub 20050310. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh765. PubMed PMID: 15760966.
15. 15. Ruiz A, Remohi J, Minguez Y, Guanes PP, Simon C, Pellicer A. The role of in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in couples with unexplained infertility after failed intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 1997;68(1):171-3. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(97)81497-5. PubMed PMID: 9207606.
16. 16. Delilbaşı L. A'dan Z'ye: tüp bebek: laboratuvar: Veri Medikal Yayıncılık; 2008.
17. 17. Albertini DF, Combelles CM, Benecchi E, Carabatsos MJ. Cellular basis for paracrine regulation of ovarian follicle development. Reproduction. 2001;121(5):647-53. doi: 10.1530/rep.0.1210647. PubMed PMID: 11427152.
18. 18. Turathum B, Gao EM, Chian RC. The Function of Cumulus Cells in Oocyte Growth and Maturation and in Subsequent Ovulation and Fertilization. Cells. 2021;10(9). Epub 20210902. doi: 10.3390/cells10092292. PubMed PMID: 34571941; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8470117.
19. 19. Liu L, Cai J, Li P, Jiang X, Ren J. Clinical outcome of cycles with oocyte degeneration after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2017;63(2):113-9. Epub 20170202. doi: 10.1080/19396368.2016.1272648. PubMed PMID: 28151020.
20. 20. Rosen MP, Shen S, Dobson AT, Fujimoto VY, McCulloch CE, Cedars MI. Oocyte degeneration after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a multivariate analysis to assess its importance as a laboratory or clinical marker. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(6):1736-43. Epub 20060504. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.12.017. PubMed PMID: 16678177.
21. 21. Vanderhyden BC, Armstrong DT. Role of cumulus cells and serum on the in vitro maturation, fertilization, and subsequent development of rat oocytes. Biol Reprod. 1989;40(4):720-8. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod40.4.720. PubMed PMID: 2752073.
22. 22. Gordon I. Laboratory production of cattle embryos: Cabi; 2003.
23. 23. Uyar A, Torrealday S, Seli E. Cumulus and granulosa cell markers of oocyte and embryo quality. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(4):979-97. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.129. PubMed PMID: 23498999; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3866131.
24. 24. Cheng KW, Leung PC. The expression, regulation and signal transduction pathways of the mammalian gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2000;78(12):1029-52. PubMed PMID: 11149380.
25. 25. Van de Velde H, De Vos A, Joris H, Nagy ZP, Van Steirteghem AC. Effect of timing of oocyte denudation and micro-injection on survival, fertilization and embryo quality after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(11):3160-4. doi: 10.1093/humrep/13.11.3160. PubMed PMID: 9853875.