The experience of holding the cycles of assisted reproductive technology with defrost, a biopsy, genetic study and refreezing of embryos in patients with multiple unsuccessful implantations

2016 ◽  
pp. 166-170
Author(s):  
Y.V. Masliy ◽  
◽  
I.O. Sudoma ◽  
P.S. Mazur ◽  
D.A. Mykytenko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chromosomal Rearrangements ◽  
Genetic Diagnosis ◽  
Morphological Characteristics ◽  
Implantation Rate ◽  
Ovarian Response ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Comparative Genome Hybridization ◽  
Comparative Genome ◽  
Vitro Fertilization

The objective: to study the possibility of using frozen blastocysts for biopsy and genetic testing and performance measurement transfer euploeded 5–7-day-old embryos after thawing, biopsies, refreezing and thawing in patients with unsuccessful implantation. Patients and methods. The object of the study was the group of patients with repeated failure of implantation (4) in programs of auxiliary reproductive technologies (ART), subject to transfer to the uterus in total (i.e. in all the programs) for at least 6 good quality embryos based on morphological characteristics). All women had sufficient ovarian reserve. The patient was treated for infertility within the ART programs of the clinic of reproductive medicine "Nadiya" in the period from 2006 to 2016. The sample included couples who were not carriers of chromosomal rearrangements, without anomalies of the uterus (congenital and acquired: a doubling of the uterus, one-horned uterus, intrauterine membrane, synechia, submucous myoma of the uterus). All women had a positive ovarian response to controlled stimulation with gonadotropins (at least 7 oocytes) and a sufficient number of cryopreserved embryos. The first group (G1) included 64 women who trophectodermal a biopsy was performed on fresh blastocysts (in a loop controlled ovarian hyperstimulation). The second group (G2) were included 31 women who underwent thawing previously cryopreserved blastocysts trophectodermal re-biopsy and vitrification of blastocysts. Results. It was found that the performance of transfers euploid embryos that were vitrified, bioptrone and revitriphted, a little lower than those that were bioptrone fresh and vitrified only once. At the same time computationa genetic diagnosis previously vitrified blastocysts using comparative genome hybridization in patients with recurrent failed implantation allows to obtain a reasonable pregnancy rate (58%), implantation rate (33.3 %) and the birth of living children (45.1 %). Conclusion. Reprising biopropane embryos does not cause significant destructive impact and allows you to achieve pregnancy and birth of the alive child. Key words: in vitro fertilization, reusable unsuccessful implantation, a method of comparative genome hybridization, refreezing.

Legal restrictions on pre-implantation genetic diagnostics in the framework of in vitro fertilization procedure: foreign experience and Russian perspective

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
N.A. Altinnik , S.S. Zenin , V.V. Komarova et all
Keyword(s):  
In Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Assisted Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Genetic Diseases ◽  
Genetic Diagnosis ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Genetic Diagnostics ◽  
Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Medical Indications

The article discusses the factors that determine the content of the legal limitations of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis in the framework of the in vitro fertilization procedure, taking into account international experience and modern domestic regulatory legal regulation of the field of assisted reproductive technologies. The authors substantiates the conclusion that it is necessary to legislate a list of medical indications for preimplantation genetic diagnosis, as well as the categories of hereditary or other genetic diseases diagnosed in the framework of this procedure.

In Vitro Fertilization and the Embryonic Revolution

2009 ◽  
pp. 609-622
Author(s):  
D. Gareth Jones
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cells ◽  
In Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Human Embryo ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Genetic Diagnosis ◽  
Embryonic Stem ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Human Embryology

The advent of in vitro fertilization (IVF) marked a watershed in the scientific understanding of the human embryo. This, in turn, led to a renaissance of human embryology, accompanied by the ability to manipulate the human embryo in the laboratory. This ability has resulted in yet further developments: refinements of IVF itself, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, the derivation and extraction of embryonic stem cells, and even various forms of cloning. There are immense social and scientific pressures to utilize the artificial reproductive technologies in ways that have little or no connection with overcoming infertility. As the original clinical goals of IVF have undergone transformation ethical concerns have escalated, so much so that they are condemned by some as illustrations of ‘playing God’, while any babies born via some of these procedures are labelled as ‘designer babies’. Both terms reflect the fear and repugnance felt by some at the interference with the earliest stages of human life by the artificial reproductive technologies. It is at these points that bioethical analyses have an important contribution to make.

scholarly journals Embryologist's Job in Assisted Reproductive Technologies and in Vitro Fertilization

2021 ◽  
pp. 108-115
Author(s):  
Harsimrat Kaur ◽  
Ram Dayal ◽  
Kamla Singh
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Screening ◽  
Assisted Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Genetic Diagnosis ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Fertility Treatment ◽  
Medical Professionals ◽  
Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Laboratory Environment ◽  
Reproductive Research

What exactly does an embryologist do? is one of the most common question asked by patients and the possible answer could be that embryologist is the child’s first watchperson. The ability to grow embryos in laboratory environment was a huge scientific achievement. Scientists and Embryologists are involved in reproductive research and fertility treatment. The embryologist has a huge role to play in IVF/ICSI process and the contribution of embryologist is no less than infertility consultant. They might not be doctors, but they are highly trained medical professionals, holding a master’s degree or Ph.D. due to specialized nature of work. They are responsible for management and maintenance of laboratory used in creating embryos as well as monitoring those embryos. The important activities that embryologist does are maintaining the embryology lab (temperature, humidity, CO2 cylinder, diffusion gas and pH), oocyte screening during ovum pickup (OPU), incubation and checking of fertilization, embryo transfer, vitrification and embryo biopsy for pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) or pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).

scholarly journals Endometriosis-Related Infertility: The Role of the Assisted Reproductive Technologies

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric S. Surrey
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Ovarian Response ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Invasive Disease ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Ovarian Endometriomas

The assisted reproductive technologies, particularly in vitro fertilization (IVF), represent the most efficient and successful means of overcoming infertility associated with endometriosis. Although older studies suggest that IVF outcomes are compromised in endometriosis patients, more contemporary reports show no differences compared to controls. The exception may be evidence of poorer outcomes and diminished ovarian response in women with advanced disease, particularly those with significant ovarian involvement or prior ovarian surgery. Prolonged pre-IVF cycle suppressive medical therapy, particularly gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists, appears to improve success rates in a subset of endometriosis patients. However, as of yet, there is no diagnostic marker to specifically identify those who would most benefit from this approach. Pre-IVF cycle surgical resection of nonovarian disease has not been consistently shown to improve outcomes with the possible exception of resection of deeply invasive disease, although the data is limited. Precycle resection of ovarian endometriomas does not have benefit and should only be performed for gynecologic indications. Indeed, there is a large body of evidence to suggest that this procedure may have a deleterious impact on ovarian reserve and response. A dearth of appropriately designed trials makes development of definitive treatment paradigms challenging.

scholarly journals The health status of children born through assisted reproductive technologies: probable risks and possible complications

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 56-63
Author(s):  
E. G. Pitskhelauri ◽  
A. N. Strizhakov ◽  
E. B. Timokhina ◽  
V. S. Belousova ◽  
I. M. Bogomazova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Status ◽  
Assisted Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Genetic Diagnosis ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Favorable Effect ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Health And Development

Most of the negative consequences for the health and development of children born through assisted reproductive technologies are related to health status of their mothers, i.e. infertility, age and the related metabolic, genetic and epigenetic changes affecting the quality of gametes and pregnancy. Improvement of the current techniques of in vitro fertilization, preimplantation genetic diagnosis and other preventive measures will have a favorable effect on the health status of such children.

Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Options for the At-Risk Couple

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amber Mathiesen ◽  
Kali Roy
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
In Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Assisted Reproductive Technology ◽  
Assisted Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Genetic Diagnosis ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Reproductive Technology ◽  
Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Increased Risk

For those with an increased risk of having a child with a genetic condition, reproductive options include avoiding pregnancy altogether, undertaking prenatal diagnosis in a current pregnancy, and preventing the transmission of the genetic changes responsible for the condition to a child. This chapter on assisted reproductive technology and reproductive options for the at-risk couple describes the basic techniques of assisted reproductive technologies as well as reproductive testing options prior to in vitro fertilization, including preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). It includes a brief overview of ovarian stimulation, intrauterine insemination (IUI), and in vitro fertilization. This chapter discusses the details of PGS including the process and its limitations. It also includes a discussion of PGD, including the process, such as linkage analysis, and limitations, such as allele dropout.

Designing Babies

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Klitzman
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Genetic Diagnosis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Test Tube ◽  
Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Social Challenges ◽  
Commercial Market

Since the first “test tube baby” was born over 40 years ago, in vitro fertilization and other assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) have advanced in extraordinary ways, producing millions of babies. About 20% of Americans use infertility services, and that number is growing. ARTs enable gay and lesbian couples, single parents, and now others to have offspring. Prospective parents can also use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to avoid passing on certain mutations to their children and to avoid abortions of fetuses with these mutations. Other future parents routinely choose the sex of their child and whether to give birth to twins. In the United States, these procedures are largely unregulated, and a large commercial market has rapidly grown, using “egg donors,” buying and selling human eggs and sperm, and using gestational surrogates. Potential parents; policymakers; doctors, including reproductive endocrinologists; and others thus face critical complex questions about the use—or possible misuse—of ARTs. This book examines ethical, social, and policy questions about these crucial technologies. Based on in-depth interviews, Robert Klitzman explores how doctors and patients struggle with quandaries of whether, when, and how to use ARTs. He articulates the full range of these crucial issues, from economic pressures to moral and social challenges of making decisions that will profoundly shape these offspring. The book explores, too, broader social and moral questions regarding gene editing, CRISPR, and eugenics. Klitzman argues for closer regulation of these technologies, which are altering future generations and the human species as a whole.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document