Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on February 2, 2005
Human Reproduction 2005 20(3):588-592; doi:10.1093/humrep/deh655
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Human Reproduction Vol. 20 No. 3 © The Author 2005; all rights reserved
Oocyte number per live birth in IVF: were Steptoe and Edwards less wasteful?
1 The Center for Reproductive Medicine at Mobile Infirmary Medical Center, 3 Mobile Infirmary Circle, Suite 213, Mobile, AL 36607, USA and 2 Bourn Hall Clinic, Bourn, Cambridge CB3 7TR, UK
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at. The Center for Reproductive Medicine, Mobile Infirmary Medical Center, 3 Mobile Infirmary Circle, Suite 213, Mobile, AL 36607, USA. Email: gingel10216{at}aol.com
As part of a learning exercise to assess the efficiency of oocyte utilization after controlled ovarian stimulation, we compared historical data from the publications of Steptoe and Edwards describing their early experiences in Oldham and at Bourn Hall with retrospective data from IVF and ICSI cycles carried out at Bourn Hall Clinic during the year 2000. For the purpose of analysing the more recent data, patients were subdivided into groups by age (
37 years and
38 years) and by oocyte yield (low, intermediate and high). In patients less than 38 years of age, live birth rates were equivalent in each group, irrespective of the number of oocytes retrieved. Patients who yielded low numbers of oocytes (15) utilized an average of 9.6 oocytes per live birth, compared with 25.1 and 51.5 in those who yielded intermediate (616) and high (16+) numbers of oocytes. The comparison with historical data suggests that the efficiency of oocyte utilization has not improved significantly since the early 1980s, despite 25 years' experience of controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF treatment.
Key words: IVF/live birth rates/oocyte numbers/ovarian stimulation
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
B. C.J.M. Fauser Preimplantation genetic screening: the end of an affair? Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2008; 23(12): 2622 - 2625. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. B. Baart, E. Martini, M. J. Eijkemans, D. Van Opstal, N. G.M. Beckers, A. Verhoeff, N. S. Macklon, and B. C.J.M. Fauser Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2007; 22(4): 980 - 988. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
