Advertisement

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 30, Issue 12, pp 1587–1588 | Cite as

Temperature variations inside commercial IVF incubators

  • George AnifandisEmail author
Commentary

Fine temperature regulation is critical to embryology laboratories aiming to maximize in vitro fertilization (IVF) and development, implantation and pregnancy of assisted reproductive technique (ART) embryos growing in culture under incubator conditions, although developmental plasticity of embryos permits them to develop over a range of temperatures [1].

Detailed knowledge of optimal temperature values for culture of gametes/embryos and incubator temperature control range is mandatory to preset correct biologically tolerable temperature limits. Embryology laboratories cover almost all IVF/ICSI-ET treatment needs with at least 2–3 incubators that should be checked daily for proper maintenance of temperature regulation. The absolute need for daily quality control of incubator temperature is justified by: a. the difficulty to maintain a stable temperature because of frequent opening the incubator door, b. overnight power failure, where incubators indicate the set temperature and the...

Keywords

Temperature Commercial IVF incubators 

References

  1. 1.
    Hong KH, Forman EJ, Lee H, Ferry KM, Treff N, Scott R. Optimizing the temperature for embryo culture in IVF: a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing standard culture temperature of 37 C to the reduced more physiologic temperature of 36 C. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(3):S167.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McCulloh DH. Quality control: maintaining stability in the laboratory. In: Gardner DK, Weissman A, Howles CM, Shoham Z, editors. Textobook of assisted reproductive techniques: laboratory and clinical perspectives. 2nd ed. London: Taylor & Francis; 2004. p. 25–39.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Walker MW, Butler JM, Higdon L III, Boone WR. Temperature variations within and between incubators—a prospective, observational study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013. doi: 10.1007/s10815-013-0104-0.
  4. 4.
    Higdon HL 3rd, Blackhurst DW, Boone WR. Incubator management in an assisted reproductive technology laboratory. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(3):703–710.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCulloh DH. Quality control and quality assurance: record keeping and impact on ART performance and outcome. Infertil Reprod Med Clin North Am. 1998;9:285–309.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fujiwara M, Takahashi K, Izuno M, Duan Y, Kazono M, Kimura F, et al. Effect of micro-environment maintenance on embryo culture after in-vitro fertilization: comparison of top-load mini incubator and conventional front-load incubator. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24:5–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freour T, Lammers J, Splingart C, Jean M, Barriere P. Time lapse (Embryoscope®) as a routine technique in the IVF laboratory: a useful tool for better embryo selection? Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2012;40(9):476–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cruz M, Gadea B, Garrido N, Pedersen KS, Martínez M, Pérez-Cano I, et al. Embryo quality, blastocyst and ongoing pregnancy rates in oocyte donation patients whose embryos were monitored by time-lapse imaging. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(7):569–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologySchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of ThessaliaLarisaGreece

Personalised recommendations