Abstract
Over the last two decades, methodologies for assessing embryo implantation potential have emerged, including time-lapse imaging systems, various “-omics” techniques (genomics, metabolomics, etc.), and artificial intelligence. However, all the aforementioned methods are flawed or controversial in varying degrees [1–3]. Thus, conventional morphological indicators of embryos are still used as the main rating parameters or criteria.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Armstrong S, Bhide P, Jordan V, et al. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;5(5):Cd011320.
Brouillet S, Martinez G, Coutton C, et al. Is cell-free DNA in spent embryo culture medium an alternative to embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic testing? A systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;40(6):779–96.
Zaninovic N, Rosenwaks Z. Artificial intelligence in human in vitro fertilization and embryology. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(5):914–20.
Lundin K, Ahlström A. Quality control and standardization of embryo morphology scoring and viability markers. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;31(4):459–71.
Machtinger R, Racowsky C. Morphological systems of human embryo assessment and clinical evidence. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(3):210–21.
Prados FJ, Debrock S, Lemmen JG, et al. The cleavage stage embryo. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(Suppl_1):i50–71.
Ebner T, Yaman C, Moser M, et al. Embryo fragmentation in vitro and its impact on treatment and pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(2):281–5.
Johansson M, Hardarson T, Lundin K. There is a cutoff limit in diameter between a blastomere and a small anucleate fragment. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003;20(8):309–13.
Hardarson T, Hanson C, Sjögren A, et al. Human embryos with unevenly sized blastomeres have lower pregnancy and implantation rates: indications for aneuploidy and multinucleation. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(2):313–8.
Schoolcraft WB, Gardner DK, Lane M, et al. Blastocyst culture and transfer: analysis of results and parameters affecting outcome in two in vitro fertilization programs. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(4):604–9.
Chinese Medical Association, Reproductive Medicine Branch. Expert consensus on human in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer laboratory operations (2016). J Reprod Med. 2017;26(1):1–8.
Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(6):1270–83.
Rhenman A, Berglund L, Brodin T, et al. Which set of embryo variables is most predictive for live birth? A prospective study in 6252 single embryo transfers to construct an embryo score for the ranking and selection of embryos. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(1):28–36.
Setti AS, Figueira RCS, Braga D, et al. Blastomere nucleation: predictive factors and influence of blastomere with no apparent nuclei on blastocyst development and implantation. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2018;22(2):102–7.
ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology and Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine. The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of ART laboratory performance indicators. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35(5):494–510.
Skiadas CC, Jackson KV, Racowsky C. Early compaction on day 3 may be associated with increased implantation potential. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(5):1386–91.
Iwata K, Yumoto K, Sugishima M, et al. Analysis of compaction initiation in human embryos by using time-lapse cinematography. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(4):421–6.
Kemper JM, Liu Y, Afnan M, et al. Should we look for a low-grade threshold for blastocyst transfer? A sco** review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;42(4):709–16.
Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Hatching of in vitro fertilized human embryos is influenced by fertilization method. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(5):1277–82.
Li M, Huang J, Zhuang X, et al. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes after the transfer of vitrified-warmed blastocysts develo** from nonpronuclear and monopronuclear zygotes: a retrospective cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(1):110–7.
Si J, Zhu X, Lyu Q, et al. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes after transfer of cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos derived from monopronuclear zygotes: a retrospective cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(3):527–33.
Simopoulou M, Sfakianoudis K, Tsioulou P, et al. Should the flexibility enabled by performing a day-4 embryo transfer remain as a valid option in the IVF laboratory? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(6):1049–61.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Li, D., Gao, Y. (2024). Morphological Evaluation of Cleavage-Stage Embryos and Blastocysts. In: Quality Management in the Assisted Reproduction Laboratory. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6659-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6659-2_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-99-6658-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-99-6659-2
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)