Pronuclear morphology evaluation for fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles: A systematic review

Journal of Ovarian Research

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Nicoli, Alessia ^a   Palomba, Stefano ^a   Capodanno, Francesco ^a   Fini, Maria ^a   Falbo, Angela ^a   La Sala, Giovanni Battista ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

ARTs; Embryo; ICSI; IVF; Morphology; Zygote

Indexed keywords

AZOOSPERMIA; BLASTOCYST; CELL DIVISION; CELL STRUCTURE; CELL VIABILITY; CHROMOSOME; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; FLUORESCENCE IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; INTRACYTOPLASMIC SPERM INJECTION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY RATE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; ZYGOTE;

EID: 84883677720     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17572215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1757-2215-6-64     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology, Hum Reprod 2011 26 1270 1283 21502182
2. Papale L, Fiorentino A, Montag M, Tomasi G. The zygote. Hum Reprod 2012 27 22 49
3. Morphological systems of human embryo assessment and clinical evidence. Machtinger R, Rackovsky C, Reprod Biomed Online 2013 26 210 221 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.10.021 23352813
4. The cleavage stage embryo. Prados FJ, Debrock S, Lemmen JG, Agerholm I, Hum Reprod 2012 27 50 71 10.1093/humrep/des224
5. Selection of high potential embryos using time-lapse imaging: the era of morphokinetics. Herrero J, Meseguer M, Fertil Steril 2013 99 1030 1034 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.089 23395415
6. The biological basis of non-invasive strategies for selection of human oocytes and embryos. Scott L, Hum Reprod Update 2003 9 237 249 10.1093/humupd/dmg023 12859045 (Pubitemid 36827061)
7. Preliminary observations on polar body extrusion and pronuclear formation in human oocyte using time-lapse video cinematography. Payne D, Flaherty SP, Barry MF, Matthews CD, Hum Reprod 1997 12 532 541 10.1093/humrep/12.3.532 9130755 (Pubitemid 27156451)
8. Pronuclear scoring: time for international standardization. Zollner U, Zollner HP, Steck T, Dietl J, J Reprod Med 2003 48 365 369 12815911 (Pubitemid 36613136)
9. Which morphological scoring system is relevant in human embryo development? Montag M, Liebenthron J, Köster M, Placenta 2011 32 252 256 21782239
10. The morphology of human pronuclear embryos is positively related to blastocyst development and implantation. Scott L, Alvero R, Leondires M, Miller B, Hum Reprod 2000 15 2394 2403 10.1093/humrep/15.11.2394 11056141
11. Zygote evaluation: an efficient tool for embryo selection. Wittemer C, Bettahar-Lebugle K, Ohl J, Rongières C, Nisand I, Gerlinger P, Hum Reprod 2000 15 2591 2597 10.1093/humrep/15.12.2591 11098032 (Pubitemid 32000518)
12. Embryos with high implantation potential after intracytoplasmic sperm injection can be recognized by a simple, non-invasive examination of pronuclear morphology. Tesarik J, Junca AM, Hazout A, Aubriot FX, Nathan C, Cohen-Bacrie P, Dumont-Hassan M, Hum Reprod 2000 15 1396 1399 10.1093/humrep/15.6.1396 10831576 (Pubitemid 30335971)
13. Clinical use of a pronuclear stage score following intracytoplasmic sperm injection: impact on pregnancy rates under the conditions of the German embryo protection law. Ludwig M, Schöpper B, Al-Hasani S, Diedrich K, Hum Reprod 2000 15 325 329 10.1093/humrep/15.2.325 10655303 (Pubitemid 30076712)
14. The effect of pronuclear morphology on embryo quality parameters and blastocyst transfer outcome. Balaban B, Urman B, Isiklar A, Alatas C, Aksoy S, Mercan R, Mumcu A, Nuhoglu A, Hum Reprod 2000 16 2357 2361
15. The predictive value of pronuclear morphology of zygotes in the assessment of human embryo quality. Salumets A, Hydén-Granskog C, Suikkari AM, Tiitinen A, Tuuri T, Hum Reprod 2001 16 2177 2181 10.1093/humrep/16.10.2177 11574512 (Pubitemid 32951914)
16. Evaluation of pronuclear morphology as the only selection criterion for further embryo culture and transfer: results of a prospective multicentre study. Montag M, van der Ven H, German Pronuclear Morphology Study Group, Hum Reprod 2001 16 2384 2389 11679525 (Pubitemid 33054142)
17. High outcome predictability after IVF using a combined score for zygote and embryo morphology and growth rate. De Placido G, Wilding M, Strina I, Alviggi E, Alviggi C, Mollo A, Varicchio MT, Tolino A, Schiattarella C, Dale B, Hum Reprod 2002 17 2402 2409 10.1093/humrep/17.9.2402 12202431 (Pubitemid 35021465)
18. The use of a detailed zygote score after IVF/ICSI to obtain good quality blastocysts: the German experience. Zollner U, Zollner KP, Hartl G, Dietl J, Steck T, Hum Reprod 2002 17 1327 1333 10.1093/humrep/17.5.1327 11980760 (Pubitemid 34537371)
19. Pronuclear morphology and chromosomal abnormalities as scoring criteria for embryo selection. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Fortini D, Grieco N, Fertil Steril 2003 80 341 349 10.1016/S0015-0282(03)00596-X 12909497 (Pubitemid 36959792)
20. The relationship of pronuclear stage morphology and chromosome status at cleavage stage. Chen CK, Shen GY, Horng SG, Wang CW, Huang HY, Wang HS, Soong YK, J Assist Reprod Genet 2003 20 413 420 10.1023/A:1026232625659 14649381 (Pubitemid 37429509)
21. Pronuclear morphology evaluation with subsequent evaluation of embryo morphology significantly increases implantation rates. Nagy ZP, Dozortsev D, Diamond M, Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Abdelmassih R, Greco E, Fertil Steril 2003 80 67 74 12849803 (Pubitemid 36808857)
22. Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo development. Scott L, Reprod Biomed Online 2003 6 201 214 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61711-7 12676001 (Pubitemid 36857150)
23. The predictive value of using a combined Z-score and day 3 embryo morphology score in the assessment of embryo survival on day 5. Lan KC, Huang FJ, Lin YC, Kung FT, Hsieh CH, Huang HW, Tan PH, Chang SY, Hum Reprod 2003 18 1299 1306 10.1093/humrep/deg239 12773463 (Pubitemid 36740581)
24. The effect of pronuclear morphology on early development and chromosomal abnormalities in cleavage-stage embryos. Gámiz P, Rubio C, de los Santos MJ, Mercader A, Simón C, Remohí J, Pellicer A, Hum Reprod 2003 18 2413 2419 10.1093/humrep/deg458 14585895 (Pubitemid 37427825)
25. Zygote transfer on day 1 versus cleavage stage embryo transfer on day 3: a prospective randomized trial. Jaroudi K, Al-Hassan S, Sieck U, Al-Sufyan H, Al-Kabra M, Coskun S, Hum Reprod 2004 19 645 648 10.1093/humrep/deh125 14998964 (Pubitemid 38344529)
26. Developmental potential of human pronuclear zygotes in relation to their pronuclear orientation. Kattera S, Chen C, Hum Reprod 2004 19 294 299 10.1093/humrep/deh064 14747170 (Pubitemid 38219996)
27. Pronuclear morphology predicts embryo development and chromosome constitution. Balaban B, Yakin K, Urman B, Isiklar A, Tesarik J, Reprod Biomed Online 2004 8 695 700 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61651-3 15169588 (Pubitemid 38744951)
28. Relationship between pre-embryo pronuclear morphology (zygote score) and standard day 2 or 3 embryo morphology with regard to assisted reproductive technique outcomes. Payne JF, Raburn DJ, Couchman GM, Price TM, Jamison MG, Walmer DK, Fertil Steril 2005 84 900 909 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.04.047 16213842 (Pubitemid 41414579)
29. Association of pronuclear Z score with rates of aneuploidy in in vitro-fertilised embryos. Edirisinghe WR, Jemmott R, Smith C, Allan J, Reprod Fertil Dev 2005 17 529 534 10.1071/RD04065 15907278 (Pubitemid 40903455)
30. The limited importance of pronuclear scoring of human zygotes. James AN, Hennessy S, Reggio B, Wiemer K, Larsen F, Cohen J, Hum Reprod 2006 21 1599 1604 10.1093/humrep/del013 16488905 (Pubitemid 44445042)
31. Prediction of embryo developmental potential and pregnancy based on early stage morphological characteristics. Sjöblom P, Menezes J, Cummins L, Mathiyalagan B, Costello MF, Fertil Steril 2006 86 848 861 10.1016/j.fertnstert. 2006.03.040 17027355 (Pubitemid 44485053)
32. Comparison of pronuclear zygote morphology and early cleavage status of zygotes as additional criteria in the selection of day 3 embryos: a randomized study. Chen C, Kattera S, Fertil Steril 2006 85 347 52 10.1016/j.fertnstert. 2005.07.1319 16595210 (Pubitemid 43170906)
33. Oocyte euploidy, pronuclear zygote morphology and embryo chromosomal complement. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Lappi M, Borghi E, Ermini B, Hum Reprod 2007 22 241 249 16936301 (Pubitemid 44942692)
34. Developmental prognosis for zygotes based on pronuclear pattern: usefulness of pronuclear scoring. Arroyo G, Veiga A, Santaló J, Barri PN, J Assist Reprod Genet 2007 24 173 181 10.1007/s10815-006-9099-0 17318392 (Pubitemid 46669284)
35. Limited value of morphological assessment at days 1 and 2 to predict blastocyst development potential: a prospective study based on 4042 embryos. Guerif F, Le Gouge A, Giraudeau B, Poindron J, Bidault R, Gasnier O, Royere D, Hum Reprod 2007 22 1973 1981 10.1093/humrep/dem100 17496054 (Pubitemid 47062766)
36. Morphologic parameters of early cleavage-stage embryos that correlate with fetal development and delivery: prospective and applied data for increased pregnancy rates. Scott L, Finn A, O'Leary T, McLellan S, Hill J, Hum Reprod 2007 22 230 240 16982662 (Pubitemid 44942691)
37. Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo quality in in vitro fertilization program. Depa-Martynow M, Jedrzejczak P, Pawelczyk L, Folia Histochem Cytobiol 2007 45 85 89 18292842
38. Limited importance of pre-embryo pronuclear morphology (zygote score) in assisted reproduction outcome in the absence of embryo cryopreservation. Nicoli A, Valli B, Di Girolamo R, Di Tommaso B, Gallinelli A, La Sala GB, Fertil Steril 2007 88 1167 1173 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.01.066 (Pubitemid 47513054)
39. Zygote score and status 1 or 2 days after cleavage and assisted reproduction outcome. Alvarez C, Taronger R, García-Garrido C, González de Merlo G, Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2008 101 16 20 10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.10.021 18164305
40. Relationship between pronuclear scoring and embryo quality and implantation potential in IVF-ET. Liu Q, Zhu G, Hu J, Wei Y, Ren X, Zhang H, Li Y, Jin L, Yue J, J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci 2008 28 204 206 10.1007/s11596-008-0223-5 18480999
41. Accuracy of a combined score of zygote and embryo morphology for selecting the best embryos for IVF. Qian YL, Ye YH, Xu CM, Jin F, Huang HF, J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2008 9 649 655 10.1631/jzus.B0820003 18763315
42. Evaluation of day one embryo quality and IVF outcome-a comparison of two scoring systems. Brezinova J, Oborna I, Svobodova M, Fingerova H, Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2009 3 7 9
43. Pronuclear morphology differs between women more than 38 and women less than 30 years of age. Maille L, Bergere M, Lemoine E, Camier B, Prevost JF, Bourdrel JM, Hammoud I, Selva J, Vialard F, Reprod Biomed Online 2009 18 367 373 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60095-8 19298736
44. Human zygote morphological indicators of higher rate of arrest at the first cleavage stage. Zamora RB, Sánchez RV, Pérez JG, Díaz RR, Quintana DB, Bethencourt JC, Zygote 2011 19 339 344 10.1017/ S0967199410000407 20663238
45. Predictive value of embryo grading for embryos with known outcomes. Weitzman VN, Schnee-Riesz J, Benadiva C, Nulsen J, Siano L, Maier D, Fertil Steril 2010 93 658 662 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.032 19410247
46. Analysis of pronuclear zygote configurations in 459 clinical pregnancies obtained with assisted reproductive technique procedures. Nicoli A, Capodanno F, Moscato L, Rondini I, Villani MT, Tuzio A, La Sala GB, Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2010 8 77 10.1186/1477-7827-8-77 20579351
47. Morphological embryo assessment: reevaluation. Bar-Yoseph H, Levy A, Sonin Y, Alboteanu S, Levitas E, Lunenfeld E, Har-Vardi I, Fertil Steril 2011 95 1624-8 e1-2 21316045
48. Is pronuclear scoring a really good predictor for ICSI cycles? Aydin S, Cinar O, Demir B, Korkmaz C, Ozdegirmenci O, Dilbaz S, Goktolga U, Gynecol Endocrinol 2011 27 742 747 10.3109/09513590.2010.509829 20807168
49. Pronuclear morphology evaluation in in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles: a retrospective clinical review. Nicoli A, Capodanno F, Rondini I, Valli B, Villani MT, Morini D, De Pascalis L, Palomba S, La Sala GB, J Ovarian Res 2013 6 1 10.1186/1757-2215-6-1 23282023
50. The successful use of pornuclear embryo transfer the day following oocyte retrievial. Scott LA, Smith S, Hum Reprod 1998 13 1003 1013 10.1093/humrep/13.4.1003 9619562 (Pubitemid 28239212)
51. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Tesarik J, And GE, Hum Reprod 1999 14 1318 1323 10.1093/humrep/14.5.1318 10325285 (Pubitemid 29224914)
52. Impaired development of zygotes with uneven pronuclear size. Sadowy S, Tomkin G, Munne S, Ferrara-Congedo T, Choen J, Zygote 1998 6 137 142 10.1017/S0967199498000057 9770778
53. Timing of oocyte activation, pronucleus formation and cleavage in humans after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) with testicular spermatozoa and after ICSI or in-vitro fertilization on sibling oocytes with ejaculated spermatozoa. Nagy ZP, Janssenswillen C, Janssens R, De Vos A, Staessen C, Van deVelde H, Van Steirteghem AC, Hum Reprod 1998 13 1606 1612 10.1093/humrep/13.6. 1606 9688400 (Pubitemid 28310502)
54. Morphokinetics and embryo aneuploidy: has time come or not yet? Montag M, Reprod Biomed Online 2013 26 528 530 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.03.011 23602679
55. Time-lapse microscopy and image analysis in basic and clinical embryo development research. Wong C, Chen AA, Behr B, Shen S, Reprod Biomed Online 2013 26 120 129 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.11.003 23273754
56. Retrospective analysis of outcomes after IVF using an aneuploidy risk model derived from time-lapse imaging without PGS. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Thornton S, Reprod Biomed Online 2013 27 140 146 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.04.013 23683847
57. Modelling a risk classification of aneuploidy in human embryos using non-invasive morphokinetics. Campbell A, Fishel S, Bowman N, Duffy S, Sedler M, Hickman CF, Reprod Biomed Online 2013 26 477 485 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.02.006 23518033