Laparoscopic and transvaginal ova recovery

The effect on ova quality

G. Lavy, H. Restrepo-Candelo, Michael Peter Diamond, B. Shapiro, L. Grunfeld, A. H. DeCherney

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Transvaginal follicel aspiration guided by transvaginal ultrasound for ova recovery is rapidly gaining popularity in many centers practicing in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET). Cycle outcome following this new method has not been directly compared to the traditional, laparoscopic recovery technique. To this end, the authors evaluated multiple parameters in 66 laparoscopic (group A), and 44 transvaginal ova recovery procedures (group B) in patients undergoing IVF-ET. No statistically significant differences could be demonstrated between the groups in all but the rate of ova fertilization. The rate of fertilization was higher in the ova recovered by transvaginal follicle aspiration (59.6 versus 69.2%; P < 0.01). No difference could be demonstrated between the groups in the other parameters examined, which included the number of ova recovered (5.7 ± 0.4 versus 6.0 ± 0.7), ova maturity (87 versus 84% intermediate ova), rate of polyspermic fertilization (3.9 versus 5%), rate of cleavage (88 versus 91%), cleavage stage at transfer (37.8 ± 0.8 versus 3.5 ± 0.4 cells per embryo), number of embryos transferred per patient (2.7 ± 0.1 versus 3.3 ± 0.2), and pregnancy rates. The potential detrimental effects of general anesthesia and CO2 pneumoperitoneum present during laparoscopy but not ultrasound guided recovery on ova quality may underlie the observed difference in fertilization between the groups.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1002-1006
Number of pages5
JournalFertility and Sterility
Volume49
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1988
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ovum
Fertilization
Embryo Transfer
Fertilization in Vitro
Embryonic Structures
Pneumoperitoneum
Pregnancy Rate
Laparoscopy
General Anesthesia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Lavy, G., Restrepo-Candelo, H., Diamond, M. P., Shapiro, B., Grunfeld, L., & DeCherney, A. H. (1988). Laparoscopic and transvaginal ova recovery: The effect on ova quality. Fertility and Sterility, 49(6), 1002-1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)59951-8

Laparoscopic and transvaginal ova recovery : The effect on ova quality. / Lavy, G.; Restrepo-Candelo, H.; Diamond, Michael Peter; Shapiro, B.; Grunfeld, L.; DeCherney, A. H.

In: Fertility and Sterility, Vol. 49, No. 6, 01.01.1988, p. 1002-1006.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lavy, G, Restrepo-Candelo, H, Diamond, MP, Shapiro, B, Grunfeld, L & DeCherney, AH 1988, 'Laparoscopic and transvaginal ova recovery: The effect on ova quality', Fertility and Sterility, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1002-1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)59951-8
Lavy, G. ; Restrepo-Candelo, H. ; Diamond, Michael Peter ; Shapiro, B. ; Grunfeld, L. ; DeCherney, A. H. / Laparoscopic and transvaginal ova recovery : The effect on ova quality. In: Fertility and Sterility. 1988 ; Vol. 49, No. 6. pp. 1002-1006.
@article{dd5f883324cc45abbeb2b1c4484c329d,
title = "Laparoscopic and transvaginal ova recovery: The effect on ova quality",
abstract = "Transvaginal follicel aspiration guided by transvaginal ultrasound for ova recovery is rapidly gaining popularity in many centers practicing in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET). Cycle outcome following this new method has not been directly compared to the traditional, laparoscopic recovery technique. To this end, the authors evaluated multiple parameters in 66 laparoscopic (group A), and 44 transvaginal ova recovery procedures (group B) in patients undergoing IVF-ET. No statistically significant differences could be demonstrated between the groups in all but the rate of ova fertilization. The rate of fertilization was higher in the ova recovered by transvaginal follicle aspiration (59.6 versus 69.2{\%}; P < 0.01). No difference could be demonstrated between the groups in the other parameters examined, which included the number of ova recovered (5.7 ± 0.4 versus 6.0 ± 0.7), ova maturity (87 versus 84{\%} intermediate ova), rate of polyspermic fertilization (3.9 versus 5{\%}), rate of cleavage (88 versus 91{\%}), cleavage stage at transfer (37.8 ± 0.8 versus 3.5 ± 0.4 cells per embryo), number of embryos transferred per patient (2.7 ± 0.1 versus 3.3 ± 0.2), and pregnancy rates. The potential detrimental effects of general anesthesia and CO2 pneumoperitoneum present during laparoscopy but not ultrasound guided recovery on ova quality may underlie the observed difference in fertilization between the groups.",
author = "G. Lavy and H. Restrepo-Candelo and Diamond, {Michael Peter} and B. Shapiro and L. Grunfeld and DeCherney, {A. H.}",
year = "1988",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0015-0282(16)59951-8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "49",
pages = "1002--1006",
journal = "Fertility and Sterility",
issn = "0015-0282",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Laparoscopic and transvaginal ova recovery

T2 - The effect on ova quality

AU - Lavy, G.

AU - Restrepo-Candelo, H.

AU - Diamond, Michael Peter

AU - Shapiro, B.

AU - Grunfeld, L.

AU - DeCherney, A. H.

PY - 1988/1/1

Y1 - 1988/1/1

N2 - Transvaginal follicel aspiration guided by transvaginal ultrasound for ova recovery is rapidly gaining popularity in many centers practicing in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET). Cycle outcome following this new method has not been directly compared to the traditional, laparoscopic recovery technique. To this end, the authors evaluated multiple parameters in 66 laparoscopic (group A), and 44 transvaginal ova recovery procedures (group B) in patients undergoing IVF-ET. No statistically significant differences could be demonstrated between the groups in all but the rate of ova fertilization. The rate of fertilization was higher in the ova recovered by transvaginal follicle aspiration (59.6 versus 69.2%; P < 0.01). No difference could be demonstrated between the groups in the other parameters examined, which included the number of ova recovered (5.7 ± 0.4 versus 6.0 ± 0.7), ova maturity (87 versus 84% intermediate ova), rate of polyspermic fertilization (3.9 versus 5%), rate of cleavage (88 versus 91%), cleavage stage at transfer (37.8 ± 0.8 versus 3.5 ± 0.4 cells per embryo), number of embryos transferred per patient (2.7 ± 0.1 versus 3.3 ± 0.2), and pregnancy rates. The potential detrimental effects of general anesthesia and CO2 pneumoperitoneum present during laparoscopy but not ultrasound guided recovery on ova quality may underlie the observed difference in fertilization between the groups.

AB - Transvaginal follicel aspiration guided by transvaginal ultrasound for ova recovery is rapidly gaining popularity in many centers practicing in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET). Cycle outcome following this new method has not been directly compared to the traditional, laparoscopic recovery technique. To this end, the authors evaluated multiple parameters in 66 laparoscopic (group A), and 44 transvaginal ova recovery procedures (group B) in patients undergoing IVF-ET. No statistically significant differences could be demonstrated between the groups in all but the rate of ova fertilization. The rate of fertilization was higher in the ova recovered by transvaginal follicle aspiration (59.6 versus 69.2%; P < 0.01). No difference could be demonstrated between the groups in the other parameters examined, which included the number of ova recovered (5.7 ± 0.4 versus 6.0 ± 0.7), ova maturity (87 versus 84% intermediate ova), rate of polyspermic fertilization (3.9 versus 5%), rate of cleavage (88 versus 91%), cleavage stage at transfer (37.8 ± 0.8 versus 3.5 ± 0.4 cells per embryo), number of embryos transferred per patient (2.7 ± 0.1 versus 3.3 ± 0.2), and pregnancy rates. The potential detrimental effects of general anesthesia and CO2 pneumoperitoneum present during laparoscopy but not ultrasound guided recovery on ova quality may underlie the observed difference in fertilization between the groups.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0023932586&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0023932586&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)59951-8

DO - 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)59951-8

M3 - Article

VL - 49

SP - 1002

EP - 1006

JO - Fertility and Sterility

JF - Fertility and Sterility

SN - 0015-0282

IS - 6

ER -