引用本文:李政达,薛林涛,谭卫红,成俊萍,王世凯,毛献宝,张小慧,周亭亭,韦娉嫔.受精卵质量评估在体外受精胚胎发育潜能及临床妊娠率预测中的应用价值[J].中国临床新医学,2019,12(1):47-51.
【打印本页】   【下载PDF全文】   查看/发表评论  【EndNote】   【RefMan】   【BibTex】
←前一篇|后一篇→ 过刊浏览    高级检索
本文已被:浏览 159次   下载 110 本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫!
分享到: 微信 更多
受精卵质量评估在体外受精胚胎发育潜能及临床妊娠率预测中的应用价值
李政达,薛林涛,谭卫红,成俊萍,王世凯,毛献宝,张小慧,周亭亭,韦娉嫔
530021 南宁,广西壮族自治区人民医院生殖医学与遗传中心
摘要:
[摘要] 目的 探讨体外受精周期受精卵原核评级及胞浆晕出现与否在预测胚胎体外发育潜能及临床妊娠率的应用价值。方法 回顾性分析618例体外受精周期D1受精卵原核评级及胞浆晕出现情况与卵裂率、D3可冻胚胎率、D3优质胚胎率、囊胚转化率、可冻囊胚转化率、优质囊胚转化率及临床妊娠结局的关系。结果 D1受精卵原核评级为Z1、Z2、Z3组的D3卵裂率、D3优质胚胎率、囊胚转化率、可冻囊胚转化率均高于Z4组受精卵且差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);受精卵原核评级Z1组囊胚转化率高于Z3组且差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);受精卵胞浆晕出现组胚胎发育参数高于无胞浆晕出现组且差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);原核评级为Z1、Z2、Z3的受精卵胞浆晕出现组胚胎发育参数高于无胞浆晕出现组且差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),但原核评级为Z4的受精卵有胞浆晕组仅D3优质胚胎率高于无胞浆晕组且差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);D3移植周期中,移植胚胎胞浆晕出现与否在不同分组间的临床妊娠率及胚胎种植率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 体外受精周期受精卵原核评级及胞浆晕出现与否可以用于预测胚胎体外发育潜能,但移植胚胎胞浆晕出现与否无法预测胚胎种植及临床妊娠率。
关键词:  原核评级  胞浆晕  胚胎发育潜能  胚胎选择  预测价值
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-3806.2019.01.12
分类号:R 715
基金项目:广西卫计委科研课题(编号:Z2015305,20170336)
Application value of assessment for oosperm quality in predicting embryonic development potential and clinical pregnancy rate
LI Zheng-da, XUE Lin-tao, TAN Wei-hong, et al.
Reproductive Medical and Genetic Center, the People′s Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530021, China
Abstract:
[Abstract] Objective To explore the application value of the pronuclear morphology score and the presence of cytoplasmic halo in predicting the embryonic development potential and clinical pregnancy rate. Methods In this retrospective study, 618 cases zygotes were assessed according to pronuclear scoring systems and checked for the formation of cytoplasmic halo. The embryo cleavage rate, day 3 frozen embryo rate, day 3 high-quality embryo rate, blastocyst formation rate, frozen blastocyst formation rate, high-quality blastocyst formation rate and the clinical pregnancy outcome were analyzed. Results The day 3 embryo cleavage rate, high-quality embryo rate, blastocyst formation rate, and frozen blastocyst formation rate were significantly higher in Z1, Z2, Z3 zygotes than in Z4 zygotes(P<0.05). The blastocyst formation rate of Z1 was significantly higher than that of Z3(P<0.05). Compared with those in halo-negative zygotes, the embryonic development parameters were significantly higher than those in halo-positive zygotes(P<0.05). The embryonic development parameters of halo-positive Z1, Z2, Z3 zygotes were significantly higher than those of halo-negative Z1, Z2, Z3 zygotes(P<0.05), however, only the day 3 high-quality embryo rate was significantly higher in the halo-positive Z4 zygotes than in the halo-negative Z4 zygotes(P<0.05). Whether Day 3 embryos appeared or not, a halo at zygote stage was not significantly different in the clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate(P>0.05). Conclusion Pronuclear morphology score and the presence or absence of cytoplasmic halo can indicate the developmental potential of embryo in vitro, but the cytoplasmic halo can not predict the embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy rate effectively.
Key words:  Pronuclear scoring  Cytoplasmic halo  Embryonic development potential  Embryo selection  Predictive value