Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (34)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jones, G.M.
Right arrow Articles by Trounson, A.O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jones, G.M.
Right arrow Articles by Trounson, A.O.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 14, No. 6, 1405-1408, June 1999
© 1999 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology


Debate continued

The benefits of extended culture

G.M. Jones1 and A.O. Trounson

Centre for Early Human Development, Institute of Reproduction and Development, Monash University, Level 5, Monash Medical Centre, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, Victoria, Australia, 3168

It is common practice in most human assisted reproduction programmes around the world to carry out embryo transfers on day 2 of culture and, very occasionally, on day 3. However, the need for change has been raised (Tsirigotis, 1998Go). Embryos are almost always transferred to the patient's uterus at the early cleavage stage even though, in vivo, the embryo does not normally enter the uterus until the morula stage (Croxatto et al., 1972Go), which is closer to day 4 of culture. In rodents and domestic ruminants, premature exposure of early cleavage stage embryos to the uterine environment results in the embryos failing to develop further and a poor pregnancy outcome (Moore and Shelton, 1964Go; Holst and Braden, 1972Go). However, in both ruminants (Hasler et al., 1987Go) and mice (Bronson and McLaren, 1970Go), deferring uterine transfer to the blastocyst stage results in . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Notes

References


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
G. Kokkali, J. Traeger-Synodinos, C. Vrettou, D. Stavrou, G.M. Jones, D.S. Cram, E. Makrakis, A.O. Trounson, E. Kanavakis, and K. Pantos
Blastocyst biopsy versus cleavage stage biopsy and blastocyst transfer for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of beta-thalassaemia: a pilot study
Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2007; 22(5): 1443 - 1449.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
S. Palomba, T. Russo, A. Falbo, F. Orio Jr, F. Manguso, E. Nelaj, A. Tolino, A. Colao, B. Dale, and F. Zullo
Clinical use of the perifollicular vascularity assessment in IVF cycles: a pilot study
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2006; 21(4): 1055 - 1061.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
EndocrinologyHome page
C. Sjoblom, C. T. Roberts, M. Wikland, and S. A. Robertson
Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor Alleviates Adverse Consequences of Embryo Culture on Fetal Growth Trajectory and Placental Morphogenesis
Endocrinology, May 1, 2005; 146(5): 2142 - 2153.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
M.-L. Windt, T.F. Kruger, K. Coetzee, and C.J. Lombard
Comparative analysis of pregnancy rates after the transfer of early dividing embryos versus slower dividing embryos
Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2004; 19(5): 1155 - 1162.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
D.A. Blake, M. Proctor, and N.P. Johnson
The merits of blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a Cochrane review
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2004; 19(4): 795 - 807.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
F. J. Los, D. Van Opstal, and C. van den Berg
The development of cytogenetically normal, abnormal and mosaic embryos: a theoretical model
Hum. Reprod. Update, January 1, 2004; 10(1): 79 - 94.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
N.S. Macklon, M.H.E.C. Pieters, M.A. Hassan, P.H.M. Jeucken, M.J.C. Eijkemans, and B.C.J.M. Fauser
A prospective randomized comparison of sequential versus monoculture systems for in-vitro human blastocyst development
Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2002; 17(10): 2700 - 2705.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
T. Ebner, M. Moser, M. Sommergruber, C. Yaman, U. Pfleger, and G. Tews
First polar body morphology and blastocyst formation rate in ICSI patients
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2002; 17(9): 2415 - 2418.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
U. Zollner, K.-P. Zollner, G. Hartl, J. Dietl, and T. Steck
The use of a detailed zygote score after IVF/ICSI to obtain good quality blastocysts: the German experience
Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2002; 17(5): 1327 - 1333.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
G.A. Palmer, J. Traeger-Synodinos, S. Davies, M. Tzetis, C. Vrettou, M. Mastrominas, and E. Kanavakis
Pregnancies following blastocyst stage transfer in PGD cycles at risk for {beta}-thalassaemic haemoglobinopathies
Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2002; 17(1): 25 - 31.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]