Skip to main content

Cytoplasmic pitting has a negative influence on implantation outcome

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics volume 22, pages 239–244 (2005)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose: Since cytoplasmic pitting is a morphological phenomenon discussed controversially, this study was set up in order to assess the actual influence of cytoplasmic pitting on treatment outcome.

Methods: Four hundred and one patients undergoing 484 consecutive treatment cycles were evaluated retrospectively in order to assess the actual influence of pitting on treatment outcome.

Results: Pitting was found to be reduced in single culture as compared to group culture (p < 0.01). No correlation of cytoplasmic texture with rates of implantation and pregnancy could be observed, but a significantly higher proportion (p < 0.05) of gestational sacs vanished in the group with exclusive transfer of pitted embryos compared to the unaffected group. Obstetric and perinatal outcome was not affected.

Conclusions: It is possible that culture conditions favor cytoplasmic pitting, a morphological phenomenon which, in the extreme case, may result in early loss of gestation sacs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Tews G: Selection based on morphological assessment of oocytes and embryos at different stages of preimplantation development: A review. Hum Reprod Update 2003;9:251–262

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Scott LA: The biological basis of non-invasive strategies for selection of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update 2003;9:237–249

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Xia P: Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: Correlation of oocyte grade based on polar body, perivitelline space and cytoplasmic inclusions with fertilization rate and embryo quality. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1750–1755

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ebner T, Yaman C, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Feichtinger O, Tews G: Prognostic value of first polar body morphology on fertilization rate and embryo quality in intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 2000;15:427–430

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Scott LA, Smith S: The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 1998;13:1003–1013

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tesarik J, Greco E: The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1318–1323

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D, Valkenburg M, Van de Meersche M, Ryckaert G, Eestermans W, Gerris J: Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2345–2349

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rijnders PM, Jansen CAM: The predictive value of day 3 embryo morphology regarding blastocyst formation, pregnancy and implantation rate after day 5 transfer following in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1998;3:2869–2873

    Google Scholar 

  9. Graham J, Han T, Porter R, Levy M, Stillman R, Tucker MJ: Day 3 morphology is a poor predictor of blastocyst quality in extended culture. Fertil Steril 2000;74:495–497

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Milki AA, Hinckley MD, Gebhardt J, Dasig D, Westphal LM, Behr B: Accuracy of day 3 criteria for selecting the best embryo. Fertil Steril 2002; 77: 1191–1195.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wiemer KE, Garrisi J, Steuerwald N, Alikani M, Reing AM, Ferrara TA, Noyes N, Cohen J: Beneficial aspects of co-culture with assisted hatching when applied to multiple-failure in-vitro fertilization patients. Hum Reprod 1996;11:2429–2433

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Desai NN, Goldstein J, Rowland DY, Goldfarb JM: Morphological evaluation of human embryos and derivation of an embryo quality scoring system specific for day 3 embryos: A preliminary study. Hum Reprod 2000;15, 2190–2196

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Biggers JD, Racowsky C: The development of fertilized human ova to the blastocyst stage in KSOMAA medium: Is a two-step protocol necessary? Reprod BioMed Online 2002;5:133–140

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rienzi L, Ubaldi F, Minasi MG, Iacobelli M, Martinez F, Tesarik J, Greco E: Blastomere cytoplasmic granularity is unrelated to developmental potential of day 3 human embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet 2003;20:314–317

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Veeck LL: An Atlas of Human Gametes and Conceptuses, New York, London, Parthenon Publishing, 1999, 64 p.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cooke S, Quinn P, Kime L, Ayres C, Tyler JP, Driscoll GL: Improvement in early human embryo development using new formulation sequential stage-specific culture media. Fertil Steril 2002;78:1254–1260

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Gaiswinkler U, Wiesinger R, Puchner M, Tews G: Presence of a cytoplasmic halo at zygote stage but not type and extension of the same has a significant influence on preimplantation development and implantation behavior. Hum Reprod 2003;18:2406–2412

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ebner T, Yaman C, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Jesacher K, Tews G: A prospective study on oocyte survival rate after ICSI: Influence of injection technique and morphological features. J Assist Reprod Genet 2001;18:601–606

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tesarik J, Kopecny V, Plachot M, Mandelbaum J: Early morphological signs of embryonic genome expression in human preimplantation development as revealed by quantitative electron microscopy. Dev Biol 1988;128:15–20

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gardner DK, Lane M: Amino acids and ammonium regulate the development of mouse embryos in culture. Biol Reprod 1993;48:377–385

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lane M, Gardner DK: Removal of embryo-toxic ammonium from the culture medium by in situ enzymatic conversion to glutamate. J Exp Zool 1995;271:356–363

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Women’s General Hospital, IVF-Unit, Lederergasse 47, Linz, Upper Austria, A-4020, Austria

    Thomas Ebner, Gernot Tews, Michael Sommergruber & Marianne Moser

Authors
  1. Thomas Ebner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gernot Tews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Sommergruber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marianne Moser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Ebner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ebner, T., Tews, G., Sommergruber, M. et al. Cytoplasmic pitting has a negative influence on implantation outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet 22, 239–244 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-005-5146-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-005-5146-5

Keywords

  • Cytoplasmic pitting
  • clinical pregnancy rate
  • culture conditions
  • early pregnancy loss
  • implantation rate