RESUMO
Background: It is well established that high-quality semen can lead to an improved fertilisation rate. Ejaculatory abstinence (EA) certainly can influence sperm quality such as volume, count, motility and morphology. However, very few studies have addressed the influence of EA on intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) outcome and especially in males with severe oligo-asthenoteratozoospermia (OAT) syndrome. Aim: This study was undertaken with the purpose of evaluating the advantage of shorter abstinence period (1-h sequential ejaculation) in males with severe OAT syndrome on total usable embryo rate and thereby emphasising the potential application of consecutive ejaculate. Study Setting and Design: This retrospective cohort study consisted of all the infertile couples undergoing ICSI cycle with the indicated seminal characteristics who had consulted the tertiary care hospital between January 2021 and July 2021. Materials & Methods: All couples in the study had idiopathic male infertility. Retrospectively, two groups were analysed, i.e., Group A with 56 subjects in which first semen sample was used for ICSI cycle and another Group B with 41 subjects in which second semen sample collected within a shorter abstinence period of 1 h was used. Statistical Analysis: The data were descriptively analysed using GraphPad Prism (vs. 9.2). Unpaired t-test and analysis of variance test were used to determine the significance. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The age of female subjects in Group A was 29.9 ± 3.5 years while it was 29.4 ± 3.4 years in Group B. Similarly, the age of male subjects was 32.2 ± 3.6 years and 31.9 ± 4.1 years in Group A and Group B, respectively, with no statistical differences in any gender between the groups (P > 0.05). Apart from initial progressive motility (P = 0.004), none of the parameters such as total volume, total sperm count and morphology were significantly different (P > 0.05) between Group A and samples of Group B. Similarly, parameters such as volume (P = 0.006) and post-wash motility (P < 0.001) were significantly different between Group A and samples of Group B. However, there was no significant difference in sperm count and morphology (P > 0.05). Grade 1 embryos on day 3 were 345 (62.8%) in Group A and 170 (54.3%) in Group B. Overall, the total usable embryos in Group A and Group B were 222 (40.4%) and 148 (47.3%), respectively (P > 0.05). Conclusion: With regard to compromised sperm parameters, our findings do suggest that the second ejaculate is quite relevant to 'in vitro' reproductive treatments and a simple request for a second consecutive ejaculate (shorter abstinence period of 1 h) could provide the same results in terms of fertilisation. We observed the increased chances of usable embryos in the second ejaculate group.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Embryonic aneuploidy may result in miscarriage, implantation failure, or birth defects. Thus, it is clinically necessary to avoid the selection of aneuploid embryos during in vitro fertilization treatment. AIM: The aim of this study was to identify the morphokinetic differences by analyzing the development of euploid and aneuploid embryos using a time-lapse technology. We also checked the accuracy of a previously described model for selection of euploid embryos based on morphokinetics in our study population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: It is a retrospective study of 29 cycles undergoing preimplantation genetic screening from October 2013 to April 2015 at our center. Of 253 embryos, 167 suitable for biopsy embryos were analyzed for their chromosomal status using array-comparative genome hybridization (CGH). The morphokinetic behavior of these embryos was further analyzed in embryoscope using time-lapse technology. RESULTS: Among the analyzed embryos, 41 had normal and 126 had abnormal chromosome content. No significant difference in morphokinetics was found between euploid and aneuploid embryos. The percentage of embryos with blastulation was similar in the euploid (65.85%, 27/41) and aneuploid (60.31%, 76/126) embryos (P = 0.76). Although hard to define, majority of the chromosomal defects might be due to meiotic errors. On applying embryo selection model from Basile et al., embryos falling within optimal ranges for time to division to 5 cells (t5), time period of the third cell cycle (CC3), and time from 2 cell division to 5 cell division (t5-t2) exhibited greater proportion of normal embryos than those falling outside the optimal ranges (28.6%, 25.9%, and 26.7% vs. 17.5%, 20.8%, and 14.3%). CONCLUSION: Keeping a track of time interval between two stages can help us recognize aneuploid embryos at an earlier stage and prevent their selection of transfer. However, it cannot be used as a substitute for array CGH to select euploid embryos for transfer.