Skip Navigation



Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on October 20, 2005
Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/dei350
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/2/518    most recent
dei350v1
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 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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bungum, M.
Right arrow Articles by Humaidan, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bungum, M.
Right arrow Articles by Humaidan, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Received July 31, 2005
Revised September 5, 2005
Accepted September 12, 2005

Article

A prospective study, using sibling oocytes, examining the effect of 30 seconds versus 90 minutes gamete co-incubation in IVF

Mona Bungum 1*, Leif Bungum 2, and Peter Humaidan 2

1 The Fertility Clinic, Viborg Hospital (Skive), Resenvej 25, DK 7800 Skive, Denmark; Fertility Centre, Scanian Andrology Centre, Malmö University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
2 The Fertility Clinic, Viborg Hospital (Skive), Resenvej 25, DK 7800 Skive, Denmark

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Mona Bungum, E-mail: mona.bungum{at}sygehusviborg.dk


  Abstract

BACKGROUND: Traditionally oocytes have been exposed to sperm overnight, for 16-20 h. This long period of co-incubation, however, has been shown to create problems with high levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which may affect embryo viability and cause hardening of the zona pellucida. Recently, a positive effect of reducing the co-incubation time to 90-120 min was reported. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a further reduction of the co-incubation period could benefit the outcome of IVF. METHODS: In this prospective study, 777 sibling oocytes from 81 women undergoing IVF were divided via alternate allocation to co-incubation for either 30 s (ultrashort co-incubation) (group A) or for 90 min (standard co-incubation) (group B). Endpoints were normal fertilization (two-pronuclear, 2PN), polyspermy (>2PN), embryo quality (EQ), clinical pregnancy (CP) and implantation (IR). RESULTS: The normal fertilization rates of the two groups were comparable: group A 58.6% versus group B 58.0%. Significantly lower rates of polyspermy were seen in group A compared to group B (2.8 versus 7.2%, P = 0.008). No statistically significant differences in EQ, CP or IR were seen. CONCLUSION: This is the first study demonstrating the achievement of good fertilization rates in IVF with ultrashort co-incubation. Significantly lower rates of polyspermy were seen in the group with ultrashort compared to the standard co-incubation group. Further studies are, however, needed in order to evaluate whether ultrashort co-incubation has any effect on the outcome of IVF.

Keywords: fertilization/gamete co-incubation/IVF/polyspermy.
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
 ReproductionHome page
C. Lopez-Fernandez, M. J G Gage, F. Arroyo, A. Gosalbez, A. M Larran, J. L Fernandez, and J. Gosalvez
Rapid rates of sperm DNA damage after activation in tench (Tinca tinca: Teleostei, Cyprinidae) measured using a sperm chromatin dispersion test
Reproduction, August 1, 2009; 138(2): 257 - 266.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.