Advertisement

Explaining How Reproductive Laboratories Work

  • Sandro Esteves
  • Ashok Agarwal
Chapter

Abstract

In order to perform the procedures under their scope of activity, reproductive laboratories shall have the following (1) written instructions of how procedures are to be carried out, (2) personnel to perform procedures and routines, and (3) resources and facilities to allow procedures to be performed. The development of the laboratory procedure manual defines all aspects of work in a standardized manner. In theory, most procedures performed by RLs are fairly well standardized. These procedures have been designed to either diagnose or treat conditions which impair the reproductive potential of a given couple. In daily practice, however, there is a wide variation in the procedures adopted by different laboratories and even by different personnel working in the same facility.

Keywords

Particle Count Potassium Permanganate Laboratory Personnel Biosafety Level Material Safety Data Sheet 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Boone WR, Higdon III L, Johnson JE. Quality management issues in the assisted reproduction laboratory. J Reprod Stem Cell Biotechnol. 2010;1:30–107.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Laboratory documents: development and control; approved guidelines. 5th ed. Wayne, PA: CLSI document GP2-A5; 2006:1–80.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Revised guidelines for human embryology and andrology laboratories. Fertil Steril. 2008;90 Suppl 3:S45–59.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ministry of Health. Brazilian National Agency for Sanitary Surveillance (2006). Resolução no. 33 da Diretoria Colegiada da Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (amended by RDC23 of 27 May 2011 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells). http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/anvisa/2011/res0023_27_05_2011.html. Accessed 14 Feb 2012.
  5. 5.
    Magli MC, Abbeel EV, Lundin K, et al. Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1253–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    College of American Pathologists. Standards for reproductive laboratories Accreditation, 2009 edition. http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/laboratory_accreditation/build/pdf/standards_repro.pdf. Accessed 20 Sep 2011.
  7. 7.
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS): Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act (CLIA). https://www.cms.gov/CLIA/09_CLIA_Regulations_and_Federal_Register_Documents.asp. Accessed 20 Sep 2011.
  8. 8.
    Commission of the European Parliament (2006). Directive 2006/86/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:294:0032:0050:EN:PDF. Accessed 4 Sep 2012.
  9. 9.
    Matorras R, Mendoza R, Expósito A, et al. Influence of the time interval between embryo catheter loading and discharging on the success of IVF. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:2027–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fujiwara M, Takahashi K, Izuno M, 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
  11. 11.
    Little SA, Mirkes PE. Relationship of DNA damage and embryotoxicity induced by 4-hydroperoxydechosphamine in postimplantation rat embryos. Teratology. 1990;41:223–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohen J, Gilligan A, Esposito W, et al. Ambient air and its potential effects on conception in vitro. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:1742–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schimmel T, Gilligan A, Garrisi GJ, et al. Removal of volatile organic compounds from incubators used for gamete and embryo culture. Fertil Steril. 1997;67 Suppl 1:S165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hall J, Gilligan A, Schimmel T, et al. The origin, effects and control of air pollution in laboratories used for human embryo culture. Hum Reprod. 1998;13 Suppl 4:146–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mayer JF, Nehchiri F, Weedon VM, et al. Prospective randomized crossover analysis of the impact of an incubator air filtration on IVF outcomes. Fertil Steril. 1999;72 Suppl 1:S42.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Racowsky C, Nureddin A, de los Santos MJ, et al. Carbon-activated air filtration results in reduced spontaneous abortion rates following IVF. Proceedings of the 11th World Congress on In Vitro Fertilization and Human Reproductive Genetics. Sydney, Australia, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boone WR, Johnson JE, Locke A-J, et al. Control of air quality in an assisted reproductive technology laboratory. Fertil Steril. 1999;71:150–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Worrilow KC, Huynh HT, Bower JB, et al. A retrospective analysis: seasonal decline in implantation rates (IR) and its correlation with increased levels of volatile organic compounds (VOC). Fertil Steril. 2002;78 Suppl 1:S39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Worrilow KC, Huynh HT, Peters AJ. The innovative marriage between cleanroom and assisted reproductive technologies (ART) – the design, construction and National Environmental Balancing Bureau (NEBB) Certification of a prototype class 100/class 10 IVF laboratory cleanroom. Fertil Steril. 2000;74 Suppl 1:S103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Esteves SC, Gomes AP, Verza Jr S. Control of air pollution in assisted reproductive technology laboratory and adjacent areas improves embryo formation, cleavage and pregnancy rates and decreases abortion rate: comparison between a class 100 (ISO 5) and a class 1000 (ISO 6) cleanroom for micromanipulation and embryo culture. Fertil Steril. 2004;82 Suppl 2:S259–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Von Wyl S, Bersinger NA. Air quality in the IVF laboratory: results and survey. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004;21:283–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Esteves SC, Verza Jr S, Gomes AP. Comparison between international standard organization (ISO) type 5 and type 6 cleanrooms combined with volatile organic compounds filtration system for micromanipulation and embryo culture in severe male factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2006;86 Suppl 2:S353–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Knaggs P, Birch D, Drury S, et al. Full compliance with the EU directive air quality standards does not compromise IVF outcome. Hum Reprod. 2007;22 Suppl 1:i164–5.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kastrop P. Quality management in the ART laboratory. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;7:691–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mortimer D. A critical assessment of the impact of the European Union Tissues and Cells Directive (2004) on laboratory practices in assisted conception. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:162–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hartshorne GM. Challenges of the EU ‘tissues and cells’ directive. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:404–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Esteves SC. Sala Limpa - Classe 100/ISO 5 - Condição “sine qua non” nos laborátórios de reprodução assistida? Arquivos H Ellis. 2007;3:6–17.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kao YK, Higdom III HL, Gravis-Herring JE, et al. Where do mouse embryos thrive best? Comparison of mammalian embryo development under varying laboratory environments. J S C Acad Sci. 2009;7:29–30.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    United States Food and Drug Administration [homepage on the internet]. Code of Federal regulations title 21, volume 8 (21CFR1271.195) on human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products. [Revised 1 Apr 2011]. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=1271.195. Accessed 1 Mar 2012.
  30. 30.
    Commission of the European Union Communities (2000). Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2000&nu_doc=1. Accessed 14 Feb 2012.
  31. 31.
    International Organization for Standardization (1999). ISO 14644-1:1999 on cleanrooms and associated controlled environments. Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology (IEST), Arlington Heights, Illinois, USA. http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=25052. Accessed 14 Feb 2012.
  32. 32.
    National Environmental Balancing Bureau. Procedural Standards for Certified Testing of Cleanrooms, Vienna, Virginia. 1998. http://ww.nebb.org. Accessed 2 Mar 2012.
  33. 33.
    Bernstein JA, Levin L, Crandall MS, et al. A pilot study to investigate the effects of combined dehumidification and HEPA filtration on dew point and airborne mold spore counts in day care centers. Indoor Air. 2005;15:402–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Code of Federal Regulations, 40: Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 51, Subpart F, 51100. http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/19784887, and EPA’s Terms of Environment: Glossary, Abbreviations, and Acronyms. http://www.epa.gov/OCEPterms/vterms.html. Accessed 27 Sep 2011.
  35. 35.
    Anderson K, Bakke JV, Bjorseth O, et al. TVOC and health in non-industrial indoor environments. Indoor Air. 1997;7:78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Richardson ME, Bernard RS, Hann BR, et al. Investigation into complaints of in vitro embryo mortality due to toxic embryo culture room conditions. Bull S C Acad Sci. 1996;58:134–5.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gong Y, Dubin NH. Effect of felt-tip marking pens on mouse embryo growth. Fertil Steril. 1998;70 Suppl 1:S492–3.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Balaban B, Urman B. Embryo culture as a diagnostic tool. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;9:671–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Milholland D. A review of “IES-RP-CCOO6.2 Testing Cleanrooms.” Proceedings of Clean Rooms ’94 East; 1994 Mar 14–17; Philadelphia. Flemington, NJ: Witter Publishing; 1994:203–218.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Martinez-Hurtado JL, Davidson CAB, Blyth J, et al. Holographic detection of hydrocarbon gases and other volatile organic compounds. Langmuir. 2010;26:15694–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Esteves SC, Couto M. Classificação ISO 5 em laboratório de fertilização in vitro. Rev Soc Bras Contr Contam. 2005;20:8–10.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Esteves SC, Schneider DT. Male infertility and assisted reproductive technology: lessons from the IVF. Open Reprod Sci J. 2011;3:138–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    World Health Organization. Laboratory biosafety manual, 3rd ed. Geneva, World Health Organization. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241546506.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2011.
  44. 44.
    United States Pharmacopeia [homepage on the internet]. Chapter 85: Bacterial endotoxin test (2005). http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/docs/pyrogen/regulatory/28USP85.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2011.
  45. 45.
    Gould M. Bacterial endotoxins in serum. Art to science in tissue culture, vol. 4. Logan, UT: HyClone laboratories Inc.; 1995. p. 3–4.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Clarke RN, Griffin PM, Biggers JD. Screening of maternal sera using a mouse embryo culture assay is not predictive of human embryo development or IVF outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1995;12:20–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ANDROFERT, Andrology and Human Reproduction ClinicCampinasBrazil
  2. 2.Andrology Laboratory and Reproductive Tissue BankCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Cleveland Clinic FoundationClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations