FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2022267598> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2022267598 endingPage "109" @default.
• W2022267598 startingPage "107" @default.
• W2022267598 abstract "1. IntroductionHatching of the human embryo is necessary for endometrialimplantation. Therefore, this step necessarily has to occur inall successful pregnancies (1). Problems with the hatching pro-cess are thought to be a core reason for pregnancy failure inassisted reproductive technologies (ART) cycles (2). ART, par-ticularly in vitro fertilization (IVF), has been thought to beassociated with a thickened or dense zona that decreases thelikelihood of embryo hatching (3). Specifically, advancedmaternal age, repeated implantation failure, poor embryoquality, IVF culture environment, and cryopreservation haveall been cited as factors that may be associated with a de-creased rate of unassisted hatching (3,4).Assisted hatching (AH) was devised in an attempt to artifi-cially thin the zona pellucida (ZP) of cleavage embryos or blas-tocysts before embryo transfer, thus aiding the hatchingprocess (1,3). In 1990, Cohen and colleagues described theuse of micromanipulation to promote hatching followingIVF by introducing an artificial incision in the ZP of embryosjust prior to replacement in the uterus (5). This process wasnamed ‘assisted hatching’ (5). This 1990 report was the firstto show that AH confers a favorable impact on pregnancy(5). Since that time, multiple methods for AH have been ex-plored. Protocols have been described that create a full thick-ness hole through the entire zona, accomplished by mechanicalmanipulation (often with either a glass microneedle or piezo-micromanipulator), chemical application (often with acidifiedTyrode’s solution), or laser (1,2). Other methods describe thin-ning the zona, accomplished through proteolytic enzymes,acidified Tyrode’s solution, or laser (2,4).2. ControversiesThe role of AH has been the source of much debate. Irrespec-tive of the technical approach, AH remains a procedure of lar-gely unproven worth, regardless of how theoretically appealingit might seem to apply to poorer prognosis IVF cases (6).While some centers have adopted the practice of routinely per-forming assisted hatching, others do not believe that this tech-nology confers a significant clinical benefit (7). Two meta-analyses of studies evaluating potential benefits of AH re-ported significant heterogeneity among study results, suggest-ing that effects of AH may differ depending on patientcharacteristics (8). Both concluded that there is strong evidencethat AH increases pregnancy rates among patients with a his-tory of previous IVF failures (8). An in vitro observation ofover 300 research embryos left in culture till day-9 of develop-ment showed a distinct reduction in both blastocyst formationand hatching relative to increased age of the patients (6). Thisobservation suggested that a compromised ZP may play a rolein restricting blastocyst hatching both in older women and incouples whose embryos develop more slowly (6). However, itremains uncertain whether AH is beneficial to other patientpopulations. The belief by many that AH has a role to playin improving pregnancy rates in certain patient populationshas led to a number of trials evaluating the efficacy of AH ina variety of different clinical situations (2).A recent Cochrane review evaluated 28 AH trials encom-passing 1229 clinical pregnancies and 3646 women (2). The re-sults from this review concluded that assisted hatching maynot only improve clinical pregnancy rates but may also carrya risk of an increased incidence of multiple pregnancies. Thisreview did not find a statistical advantage to one method ofAH versus another. There are numerous recent studies thatdo indicate an advantage to assisted hatching in the properlyselected clinical indications, such as patients whose embryoshave a thickened zona, patients with elevated FSH, older pa-tients, and patients using cryopreserved embryos (6,8). Onthe other hand, the benefit of AH in good prognosis patientsis less clear (4,8). Furthermore, one could argue that the evi-dence used to justify the application of AH to poorer qualityembryos appears circumstantial (6)." @default.
• W2022267598 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2022267598 creator A5042921503 @default.
• W2022267598 creator A5090014755 @default.
• W2022267598 date "2011-06-01" @default.
• W2022267598 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2022267598 title "Laser assisted zona hatching: What is the evidence to justify its use?" @default.
• W2022267598 cites W1899795706 @default.
• W2022267598 cites W1964340937 @default.
• W2022267598 cites W1982037432 @default.
• W2022267598 cites W2018759861 @default.
• W2022267598 cites W2052529212 @default.
• W2022267598 cites W2105122820 @default.
• W2022267598 cites W2167175051 @default.
• W2022267598 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mefs.2011.03.005" @default.
• W2022267598 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2022267598 type Work @default.
• W2022267598 sameAs 2022267598 @default.
• W2022267598 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2022267598 countsByYear W20222675982012 @default.
• W2022267598 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2022267598 hasAuthorship W2022267598A5042921503 @default.
• W2022267598 hasAuthorship W2022267598A5090014755 @default.
• W2022267598 hasBestOaLocation W20222675981 @default.
• W2022267598 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W2022267598 hasConcept C2777744765 @default.
• W2022267598 hasConcept C2780188749 @default.
• W2022267598 hasConcept C2780727368 @default.
• W2022267598 hasConcept C3013748606 @default.
• W2022267598 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2022267598 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2022267598 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2022267598 hasConceptScore W2022267598C18903297 @default.
• W2022267598 hasConceptScore W2022267598C2777744765 @default.
• W2022267598 hasConceptScore W2022267598C2780188749 @default.
• W2022267598 hasConceptScore W2022267598C2780727368 @default.
• W2022267598 hasConceptScore W2022267598C3013748606 @default.
• W2022267598 hasConceptScore W2022267598C512399662 @default.
• W2022267598 hasConceptScore W2022267598C71924100 @default.
• W2022267598 hasConceptScore W2022267598C86803240 @default.
• W2022267598 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2022267598 hasLocation W20222675981 @default.
• W2022267598 hasOpenAccess W2022267598 @default.
• W2022267598 hasPrimaryLocation W20222675981 @default.
• W2022267598 hasRelatedWork W1844946935 @default.
• W2022267598 hasRelatedWork W1980546796 @default.
• W2022267598 hasRelatedWork W1981788490 @default.
• W2022267598 hasRelatedWork W2013655674 @default.
• W2022267598 hasRelatedWork W2161719269 @default.
• W2022267598 hasRelatedWork W2345652434 @default.
• W2022267598 hasRelatedWork W2414161215 @default.
• W2022267598 hasRelatedWork W2524220908 @default.
• W2022267598 hasRelatedWork W2589028874 @default.
• W2022267598 hasRelatedWork W3035722255 @default.
• W2022267598 hasVolume "16" @default.
• W2022267598 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2022267598 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2022267598 magId "2022267598" @default.
• W2022267598 workType "article" @default.