Pronuclear morphology differs between women more than 38 and women less than 30 years of age.

Pronuclear morphology has been reported as a good tool for studying embryo development and euploidy. Comparing two groups of women with different aneuploidy risk, women more than 38 years old (n = 28) known to be at high risk of aneuploidy, and women under 30 years old (n = 35), this study investigated whether pronuclear morphology could be used routinely as an alternative to preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) in countries where PGS is prohibited. Pronuclear morphology was evaluated for 301 zygotes and related to embryo quality and pregnancy outcome. For the older women, an increased frequency of zygotes with abnormal polar body and pronuclei alignment was observed, i.e. type gamma, with 93% aneuploidy risk (26.0 versus 15.1% P < 0.05) and fewer zygotes with a good development prognosis (36.4 versus 47.8%; P < 0.05). A1alpha configuration was associated with good implantation rate and was not related to day 2 embryo quality. This configuration was less frequent in the group of women more than 38 years old and among non-pregnant women under 30 years, compared with pregnant women under 30 years old. Pronuclear morphology seemed linked to age, but not associated with embryo quality. A larger study allowing correlation analysis is necessary to confirm the value of these criteria and the link to a woman's age.

[Not Available]. / Pourquoi les vasectomisés ne se présentent-ils pas au spermogramme post-opératoire?

The rate of non-compliance with the post-vasectomy semen examination procedure at the Centre Hospitalier de l'Université Laval (CHUL) between October 1, 1985 and March 31, 1987 was 21%, one of the highest in the literature. The purpose of our study was to determine the causes of this situation. The socio-demographic profile obtained from the computerized files of 50 patients who did not comply with the procedure was comparable to that of the 183 patients who did comply. A telephone survey of 43 non-compliant patients was carried out. In 70% of the responses to an open question on the reasons for non-compliance, the subject cited on his own negligence. In response to the closed questions, the constraints involved in the semen examination procedure were cited most often (49%). In the responses to both open and closed questions, a lack of information was cited least often. There is not a distinctive profile among vasectomy patients at the CHUL that would make it possible to predict compliance. Despite the fact that it would be difficult to improve the factors associated with patient negligence, it might be possible to increase compliance by following up more closely and lessening the constraints.