English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Currently, in China, only women undergoing  in vitro  fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycles can donate oocytes to others, but at least 15 oocytes must be kept for their own treatment. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine whether oocyte donation compromises the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) of donors and whether it is possible to expand oocyte donors’ crowd.    Methods  This was a retrospective cohort study from August 2015 to July 2017 including a total of 2,144 patients, in which 830 IVF–embryo transfer (IVF-ET) patients were eligible for oocyte donation and 1,314 patients met all other oocyte donation criteria but had fewer oocytes retrieved (10–17 oocytes). All 830 patients were advised to donate approximately three to five oocytes to others and were eventually divided into two groups: the oocyte donation group (those who donated) and the control group (those who declined). The basic patient parameters and CLBR, as well as the number of supernumerary embryos after achieving live birth, were compared. These two factors were also compared in all patients (2,144) with oocyte ≥10.    Results  In 830 IVF-ET patients who were eligible for oocyte donation, only the oocyte number was significantly different between two groups, and the donation group had more than the control group (25.49 ± 5.76 vs. 22.88 ± 5.11, respectively; p = 0.09). No significant differences were found between the two groups in other factors. The results indicate that the live birth rate in the donation group was higher than that in the control group (81.31% vs. 82.95%, p = 0.371), without significance. In addition, CLBR can still reach as high as 73% when the oocyte number for own use was 10. Supernumerary embryos also increased as the oocyte number increased in all patients (oocyte ≥10).    Conclusions  Currently, oocyte donation did not compromise CLBR, and oocyte donation can decrease the waste of embryos. In addition, in patients with 10 oocytes retrieved, the CLBR was still good (73%). Thus, it is possible to expand oocyte donors if the number of oocyte kept for own use was decreased from 15 to 10 after enough communication with patients.

Is It Possible to Expand Oocyte Donors by Decreasing Number of Oocytes for Own Use? Insights From a Large Single-Center Study