Purpose The new-generation spermatozoon selection method, microfluidic technique called Fertile Chip ® gives the chance to select spermatozoa with lower DNA fragmentation indexes. We aimed to determine the effect of microfluidic techniques for spermatozoon selection in ICSI treatment in patients with unexplained infertility. Methods This prospective randomized controlled study was conducted at a university hospital. One hundred twenty-two couples with unexplained infertility were included, in which 61 of them were treated with conventional swim-up techniques (control group) and another 61 with the microfluidic technique (study group) for spermatozoon selection in IVF treatment. The fertilization rates and the quality of embryos were the primary outcomes, and clinical pregnancy (CPR) and live birth rates (LBR) were the secondary outcomes of our study.Results CPR in the study group and control group were 48.3% and 44.8% (p = 0.35) and LBR were 38.3% and 36.2% (p = 0.48), respectively. The fertilization rates were similar (63.6% and 57.4%, p = 0.098). A total number of grade 1 embryos were significantly higher in microfluidic technique group than in control group (1.45 ± 1.62 vs. 0.83 ± 1.03, p = 0.01). There were more surplus top quality embryos leftover to freeze in the study group (0.71 ± 1.48 vs. 0.22 ± 0.69, p = 0.02). Conclusion Our study showed that the microfluidic technique does not change fertilization, CPR, and LBR during IVF treatment for couples with unexplained infertility. Despite the fact that the total number of grade 1 embryos after ICSI treatment and the surplus number of grade 1 embryos after embryo transfer were higher in the microfluidic technique group, the study was not powered to detect this difference. Trial registration NCT02488434

No abstract

Introduction Cesarean deliveries are commonly performed throughout the world. Although the uterine closure technique following this procedure may influence how the uterine scar heals, there is insufficient evidence for choosing the appropriate technique and so preventing long‐term negative consequences. This prospective, randomized study examined the effects of single‐ and double‐layer uterine closure techniques on uterine scar healing following cesarean delivery. Material and methods This study assessed a total of 282 women aged 18‐45 years who were in gestational weeks 24‐41 of singleton pregnancies. None had previously undergone uterine surgeries. These participants completed their first cesarean deliveries at the time of study and were randomized into the following two treatment groups: single‐layer closure with locking and double‐layer closure with locking in the first layer, but not in the second layer (NCT03629028). However, the decidua was not included for treatment in either group. Participants were evaluated at 6‐9 months after cesarean section by saline infusion sonohysterography to assess cesarean delivery scar defects. These procedures were conducted by experienced sonographers who were not aware of the uterine closure technique. Results Of the 225 final participants, 109 received the single‐layer closure technique, whereas 116 received the double‐layer technique. The niche rates were 37% (n = 40) for the single‐layer group and 45.7% (n = 53) for the double‐layer group (P = .22, relative risk 1.4, 95% CI = 0.8‐4.4). Conclusions The single‐ and double‐layer closure techniques did not produce different impacts on uterine scar niche development.

No abstract

The value of DV PIV measurements is debated in the literature. Using our cohort, we defined the means and ranges of DV PIV. Determining the normal ranges of DV PIV could be helpful to anticipate congenital or chromosomal abnormalities. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the clinical importance of DV PIV, especially for patients with abnormal DV PIV measurements.