ArticlePloS one2025
Optimal aspiration pressure of suction pump for oocyte retrieval in infertile patients undergoing in vitro fertilization.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-specific trophoblast stem cells for placental medicine.Trends in molecular medicine · 2026Review
- The impact of operative hysteroscopy on pregnancy outcomes in patients with suspected uterine cavity lesions prior to the first frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a retrospective propensity-score matching cohort study.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe oocyte retrieval is a critical step in assisted reproductive technologies, including in vitro fertilization and fertility preservation. Despite evolving techniques, the optimal aspiration pressure during retrieval remains debatable, with limited in vivo human studies. Existing studies, primarily in vitro and on animals, suggest that inappropriate aspiration pressures can impair oocyte quality. This study aims to compares the effects of two different aspiration pressures, 120mmHg and 150mmHg, on oocyte recovery, damage, and subsequent embryo development and pregnancy outcomes in infertile women undergoing transvaginal ultrasound-guided oocyte retrieval. METHODS AND
findingsThis retrospective study analyzed data from 891 women at Seoul National University Hospital between May 2018 and August 2023. A total of 400 cycles were included, with 202 at 120 mmHg and 198 at 150 mmHg aspiration pressures. The primary outcomes were the number of retrieved, matured, fractured oocytes, embryos, and good-grade embryos. Pregnancy outcomes were evaluated by comparing the clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the relationship between aspiration pressure, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates. There was statistically significant difference in the number of retrieved oocytes and mature oocytes between the 120 mmHg group and the 150 mmHg group (6.3±5.2 vs. 7.7±6.7, p = 0.018; 4.4±3.7 vs. 5.6±5.3, p = 0.011). The number of embryos and good grade embryos also differed significantly (3.3±3.1 vs. 4.2±3.9, p = 0.011; 1.0±1.6 vs. 1.5±2.6, p = 0.031). However, there were no significant differences in clinical pregnancy and live birth rates between the two groups in multivariate logistic regression analysis (adjusted OR = 0.725, p = 0.519; adjusted OR = 0.370, p = 0.170).
conclusionsIncreasing the aspiration pressure to 150mmHg led to a higher yield of oocytes and embryos than 120mmHg, without any negative impact on oocyte quality or live birth rates. These findings provide valuable insights for clinical decision-making in infertility treatments, suggesting that 150mmHg may be a more effective pressure for oocyte retrieval in in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.