Author
Listed:
- Wan Syahirah Yang Mohsin
(Advanced Reproductive Centre HCTM Cheras, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Hospital Tuanku Azizah (HTA), Kuala Lumpur 50300, Malaysia)
- Nor Shaireen Abdullah Chue
(Advanced Reproductive Centre HCTM Cheras, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)
- Fazilah Abdul Hamid
(Advanced Reproductive Centre HCTM Cheras, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)
- Muhammad Azrai Abu
(Advanced Reproductive Centre HCTM Cheras, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)
- Sukhilmi Othman
(Hospital Bersalin Sukhilmi, No. 1-G, Jalan Coco Drive 3, Taman Bandar Senawang, Senawang 70450, Malaysia)
- Norazilah Mat Jin
(Advanced Reproductive Centre HCTM Cheras, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia
Reproductive Unit Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sg Buloh Campus, Kuala Selangor 45800, Malaysia)
- Shu Yuan Woon
(Advanced Reproductive Centre HCTM Cheras, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia
Hospital Umum Sarawak, Kuching 93586, Malaysia)
- Abdul Kadir Abdul Karim
(Advanced Reproductive Centre HCTM Cheras, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)
- Mohd Faizal Ahmad
(Advanced Reproductive Centre HCTM Cheras, Kuala Lumpur 56000, Malaysia)
Abstract
INVOcell is considered an alternative to conventional IVF proposed for intravaginal embryo culture; however, implementation is still low because evidence is scanty regarding its outcome and, most importantly, the device’s user satisfaction. Thus, we aim to compare the embryo outcome of sibling oocytes following INVOcell culture with conventional IVF (cIVF) by assessing its clinical outcome (fertilization, blastulation rate, and good embryo quality) and the user satisfaction evaluation based on a local validation questionnaire. A prospective study was done at a university-setting hospital for 12 months (July 2021–2022). The oocytes collected were divided into INVOcell and cIVF groups equally. Inclusion criteria included <40 years old and body mass index (BMI) < 30 kg/m 2 . The pre- and post-satisfaction questionnaires were assessed. In total, 23 women were included following standard controlled ovarian stimulation (COS). The mean age was 32.9, and the mean BMI was 24.9 kg/m 2 . Most of them suffered from tubal factors. A total of 252 oocytes were collected and incubated accordingly (cIVF; 138, INVOcell; 114). The blastulation rate was superior in the INVOcell group ( p = 0.16); otherwise, the fertilization rate and good embryo quality were not significantly different between both methods ( p > 0.05). Overall, women were satisfied with the INVOcell device as they were adequately advised, follow-up was scheduled, and the lowest score was obtained for all side effects of the device. Although both methods produce similar fertilization rates and good-quality embryos, the blastulation rates were better in the INVOcell group. Functionally, it is a user-friendly device and tolerable. Therefore, INVOcell can be used as an alternative method for reproductive treatment in carefully selected patients without jeopardizing the IVF outcomes.
Suggested Citation
Wan Syahirah Yang Mohsin & Nor Shaireen Abdullah Chue & Fazilah Abdul Hamid & Muhammad Azrai Abu & Sukhilmi Othman & Norazilah Mat Jin & Shu Yuan Woon & Abdul Kadir Abdul Karim & Mohd Faizal Ahmad, 2022.
"Comparison of Treatment Outcomes among Sibling Oocytes Using Different Culture Systems—Conventional IVF versus INVOcell Device—And Evaluation of INVOcell User Satisfaction: The INVOcIVF Study,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-11, September.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:19:p:12391-:d:928734
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:19:p:12391-:d:928734. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.