Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Aug;35(8):1521-1528.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-018-1207-4. Epub 2018 May 22.

Impact of polar body biopsy on embryo morphokinetics-back to the roots in preimplantation genetic testing?

Michael Schenk  1   2 , Andrea Groselj-Strele  3 , Katharina Eberhard  3 , Elisabeth Feldmeier  1 , Darja Kastelic  1 , Stefanie Cerk  1 , Gregor Weiss  4
Affiliations

Impact of polar body biopsy on embryo morphokinetics-back to the roots in preimplantation genetic testing?

Michael Schenk et al. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Aug.

Abstract

Purpose: Polar body biopsy (PBB) is a common technique in preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) to assess the chromosomal status of the oocyte. Numerous studies have been implemented to investigate the impact of biopsies on embryo development; however, information on embryo morphokinetics is still lacking. Hence, we investigated the impact of PBB on morphokinetic parameters in early embryo development.

Methods: Four hundred four embryos (202 PBB, 202 control) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were stimulated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist ovarian hyperstimulation protocol. After fertilization check, embryos were incubated in a time-lapse incubator. The groups were matched for maternal age at time of oocyte retrieval.

Results: Mean group times for reaching specific developmental time points showed no significant difference comparing embryos with PBB conducted and without. Likewise, further subdivision of the PBB group in euploid and aneuploid embryos revealed no differences in the early embryo morphokinetic development compared to the control group. Aneuploidy testing revealed a high prevalence of chromosomal aberrations for chromosomes 21, 4, 16, and 19.

Conclusions: In conclusion, PBB does not impact the morphokinetic parameters of the embryo development. PBB can be safely applied without the risk of impairing the reproductive potential of the embryo and can be highly recommended as safe and practicable PGT approach, especially in countries with prevailing restrictions regarding PGT analysis.

Keywords: Morphokinetic parameters; Polar body biopsy; Preimplantation genetic testing; Time-lapse technology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

An informed consent was obtained from each woman. The study was approved by the ethical committee of the Medical University of Graz, Austria (approval number: 20-492 ex08/09).

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart showing the embryo outcome, selection, and quantity. The embryos were divided in one group with PBB conducted and one without (= control). A follow-up on transferred embryos was done by examining β-hCG test and implantation events. Embryos with no transfer were either discarded or cryopreserved according to embryonal development (both groups) and the genetic status (PBB group). The treatment procedure is illustrated top down
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Group comparison for embryo developmental stages over time (h) for the groups “aneuploid,” “euploid,” and “control.” The time parameters of all three groups do not significantly differ and show almost identical values
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Aneuploidy screening. a) Distribution of chromosomes 1–22 and chromosome X, respectively, in respect to the individual gains and losses, resulting from the array CGH analysis. b) Distribution of chromosomal aberrations is displayed in respect to which part of the chromosome is concerned or if the whole chromosome is affected
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. De Rycke M, Belva F, Goossens V, Moutou C, SenGupta SB, Traeger-Synodinos J, et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection XIII: cycles from January to December 2010 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2011. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2015;30(8):1763–1789. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev122. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Montag M, Köster M, Strowitzki T, Toth B. Polar body biopsy. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):603–607. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.05.053. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Geraedts J, Sermon K. Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: the theory. MHR Basic Sci Reprod Med. 2016;22(8):839–844. doi: 10.1093/molehr/gaw033. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nicolaidis P, Petersen MB. Origin and mechanisms of non-disjunction in human autosomal trisomies. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 1998;13(2):313–319. doi: 10.1093/humrep/13.2.313. - DOI - PubMed
    1. VerMilyea MD, Tan L, Anthony JT, Conaghan J, Ivani K, Gvakharia M, et al. Computer-automated time-lapse analysis results correlate with embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy: a blinded, multi-centre study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29(6):729–736. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.09.005. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources