Vrt x: Reddit – Dive into anything

What is DTS Virtual:X?

by Crutchfield’s
Jeff Miller

There’s a lot of buzz surrounding the release of DTS Virtual:X. This new audio technology promises a full, three-dimensional surround sound experience without a roomful of speakers.

We got to find out if Virtual:X lives up to the hype. To celebrate its release, DTS gave us an in-house demo using Yamaha’s YAS-207 sound bar. (The YAS-207 has been discontinued, but there are some newer Yamaha sound bars with Virtual:X.)

The top-selling Yamaha YAS-207 sound bar is the first piece of audio gear to include DTS Virtual:X. 

What is DTS Virtual:X? 

DTS has long been a leader in movie and home theater sound — you’ve no doubt noticed their logo before some of your favorite films. Their latest movie sound codec is DTS:X, a completely immersive surround sound format that even includes a height dimension for overhead atmospheric effects. (Think leaves rustling on a tall tree or birds chirping above. )

This is usually accomplished with a home theater receiver, rear surround speakers, and either in-ceiling or upward-firing speakers for the “height” channels.  

A typical DTS:X system with seven surround sound speakers and four height speakers would look something like this.

“Not everybody has the space or budget to strategically place speakers around the room,” DTS rep Todd Baker told us. So Virtual:X uses special digital signal processing — one of the company’s strong suits — to simulate the full experience with a less elaborate setup.

Using only a two-channel bar and separate subwoofer, DTS Virtual:X can simulate a three-dimensional surround sound experience.

Yamaha always seems to squeeze big performance from affordable sound bars, so this was a great place to debut Virtual:X.

(Since the debut in 2017, DTS has rolled it out to certain Denon and Marantz home theater receivers — giving you simulated overhead effects without the use of height speakers.

One Virtual:X advantage? Versatility

Many sound bars simulate surround sound by bouncing sound off your walls and ceiling. “That’s great if you have the right room layout,” said Todd, before pointing out problems in our own demo space. “We’d get great sound reflection on one side, but nothing on the other side.”

DTS rep Todd demos Virtual:X in “The House”, our on-campus smart home and meeting space. The living room has one open wall.

Instead of reflecting sound, DTS Virtual:X almost completely relies on digital sound processing. That means you can get immersive sound in any kind of space — including open floor plans. 

How does it work?

DTS Virtual:X uses what Todd called “spatial audio techniques” to — my word here — “trick” you into thinking you’re hearing sound all around you. “Time and timbre cues tell our brains where a sound is coming from,” Todd explained.

DTS uses sophisticated audio delays and adjustments to create a larger, wider, and higher soundstage.

Large, yet nuanced soundstage

During the demo, I would occasionally hear some effects off to one side or over my head, but what struck me most was the level of detail. Todd played a clip from the movie The Big Short and toggled Virtual:X on and off so we could hear the difference. The processing made the dialogue sound more clear and natural, like it was coming from the screen, rather than the bar below. 

When Todd first played it with the processing turned off, I frankly thought it was a strange choice for showing off surround sound. It was simply an office scene with two investor-types talking back and forth. I didn’t even notice that it was storming outside their office.

Then he turned Virtual:X on, and the whole on-screen world opened up. I could better feel the faint rumbles of thunder and soft patter of rain hitting the windows. “You go from watching two characters talk in an office,” Todd said, “to two characters talking in an office…in the middle of a rainstorm. ” 

Bass is stronger, too

Of course not everything I heard was quite so subtle. During a frantic chase scene, the bass hit incredibly hard. While a lot of the credit goes to the YAS-207’s powerful mid-sized sub, Virtual:X added a noticeable low-end punch.

Todd said the extended bass is created by boosting certain harmonics. He explained: “It makes your brain go ‘there must be a fundamental sound I’m missing,’ and then it creates it.”

“So you’re actually ‘hearing’ sound that doesn’t exist — the bass goes an octave lower than the speaker actually plays,” said Todd. That extra bass presence gives you a sense of place, since that’s one of the main sounds we use to perceive distance.    

DTS Virtual:X delivers immersive, multi-dimensional TV and movie sound.

Running diary: Virtual:X in my living room

DTS let me take the YAS-207 sound bar home for the weekend, so I could live with Virtual:X for a bit. Here are a few highlights:

First impressions

It would be too strong to say that I felt there were speakers were above my head at all times. I don’t want to promise that illusion. But the first movie I turned on really underscored the advantage of Virtual:X. I happened to catch the movie Sully on cable just as the heroic pilot landed the plane in the Hudson.

The sound bar created this massive sound field that was larger than the screen. It gave me a larger-than-life sensory overload that expanded beyond my periphery. 

Overhead effects

The most realistic — and startling — overhead effect happened when my wife and I watched the thriller Get Out (on standard DVD, not mixed for DTS:X or Dolby Atmos). One of the antagonists clanks a spoon against a tea cup to hypnotize the main character. The sound had a similar lulling effect on us. Then a deep thunder strike came out of nowhere and gave way to heavy, violent rain pouring from above — jolting us out of our trance. 

The main event:

Game of Thrones

I capped my weekend off with a new episode of Game of Thrones. To avoid spoilers, I’ll try to speak as generally as possible. The harp-and-violin-fueled opening theme song was appropriately epic — the familiar opening rumble felt extra potent, really setting the tone.

Clearer Westeros dialogue (although I still can’t keep all the characters straight)

Quieter scenes got a boost, too. As much as I love the show, I often have problems following the dialogue. Some of that has to do with the characters’ accents, and sometimes there’s just too much going on in the background to hear what everyone is saying.

With Virtual:X, all the usual atmospheric noise was present — crackling fires, whistling wind, murmuring townspeople — but it was more spread out, like it would be if you were actually standing in the scene. And dialogue stayed front and center. Even when brooding characters whispered, their voices sounded clear, intelligible, and properly placed in the mix.

Huge, heightened effects

The YAS-207 really got to show off during an intense naval battle scene. The visceral thud of a cannonball smacking the side of the ship sounded all the more sickening thanks to the powerful sub and bass extension. Flaming arrows rained from above and hectic chatter and screaming added to the chaos.

As big and brash as the scene sounded, I was even more impressed when I watched it a second time. Through all the carnage I could pick out the subtle splashing of the ocean, slapping against the boat.    

Final thoughts

Obviously you shouldn’t expect a sound bar to give you the same experience you’d get from a roomful of speakers. There’s no substitute for the real deal. But the level of performance that Virtual:X adds to this 2.1 system has me super intrigued over what it can do for a 5.1 surround setup.

Stay tuned, because we’ll certainly keep testing Virtual:X as it shows up in home theater receivers and other audio gear. But if you’re looking for a sound bar now, the Yamaha YAS-207 is a formidable system that frankly punches out of its price range.

VRTX – Vertex Pharmaceutic Stock Price

3 Things About Vertex Pharmaceuticals That Smart Investors Know Motley Fool – Wed Jul 12, 5:00AM CDT

Vertex shares have advanced about 20% so far this year.

CRSP : 58.04 (+0.73%)

MRNA : 125.81 (+3.01%)

VRTX : 347.31 (+1.63%)

2 Top Healthcare Stocks Defying the Bear Market Motley Fool – Tue Jul 11, 5:00AM CDT

These stocks are rising in the double digits — and outperforming the S&P 500.

VRTX : 347.31 (+1.63%)

CRSP : 58.04 (+0.73%)

ISRG : 345.13 (+1.78%)

Sitting on Cash? These 2 Stocks Are Great Buys Motley Fool – Tue Jul 11, 4:30AM CDT

Coca-Cola and Vertex Pharmaceuticals are excellent choices to add to your portfolio for the long term.

CRSP : 58.04 (+0.73%)

VRTX : 347.31 (+1.63%)

KO : 59.97 (+0.76%)

Is Johnson & Johnson Stock a Buy Now? Motley Fool – Sun Jul 9, 6:45AM CDT

Some businesses never go out of style.

NVO : 154.79 (+1.67%)

KVUE : 25.27 (+0.76%)

GILD : 77.01 (+1.17%)

VRTX : 347.31 (+1.63%)

JNJ : 158.85 (+0.14%)

Want to Get Richer? 2 Unstoppable Stocks to Invest $1,000 In This Week Motley Fool – Sun Jul 9, 5:13AM CDT

A tech giant and a biotech standout are both proving their mettle in 2023.

ABNB : 137.77 (+0.17%)

VRTX : 347.31 (+1.63%)

3 Growth Stocks With 55% to 71% Upside, According to Wall Street Motley Fool – Sun Jul 9, 4:21AM CDT

Find out why investment bank analysts are so bullish on these stocks.

VRTX : 347.31 (+1.63%)

SBGI : 13.76 (+1.03%)

FUBO : 2.87 (+9.96%)

CRSP : 58.04 (+0.73%)

SE : 61.48 (+4.01%)

3 No-Brainer Stocks You Can Buy Right Now Motley Fool – Sat Jul 8, 5:14AM CDT

Going with these stocks is an easy decision.

ABBV : 136.24 (+0.49%)

PFE : 36.19 (+0.47%)

VRTX : 347.31 (+1.63%)

2 Growth Stocks That Might Be Too Cheap to Ignore Motley Fool – Thu Jul 6, 8:17AM CDT

The sky is the limit for these healthcare companies.

CRSP : 58.04 (+0.73%)

VRTX : 347.31 (+1.63%)

TDOC : 24.80 (+0.28%)

2 Supercharged Growth Stocks to Invest In Before the Next Bull Market Motley Fool – Thu Jul 6, 5:33AM CDT

Whatever the market does in the next few months, these stocks have plenty of room left to run.

UPST : 43.32 (+0.49%)

VRTX : 347.31 (+1.63%)

MP Materials, Wolfspeed rise; Amneal, Knight-Swift fall, Wednesday, 7/5/2023 Associated Press – Wed Jul 5, 3:19PM CDT

Stocks that traded heavily or had substantial price changes on Wednesday: MP Materials, Wolfspeed rise; Amneal, Knight-Swift fall

BRGYY : 15.2200 (unch)

AMRX : 3.05 (unch)

INCY : 63.08 (+0.38%)

BG : 101.49 (-0.61%)

VRTX : 347.31 (+1.63%)

CVX : 158.72 (+0.38%)

UPS : 186.50 (+0.68%)

Assisted reproductive technologies in couples at high risk of genetic disorders. Preimplantation Genetic Screening

Purpose of the study. Conduct a systematic analysis of data available in modern literature on the role of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) in the effectiveness of assisted reproductive technology (ART) programs.
Material and methods. The review includes data from foreign and domestic articles found in Pubmed on this topic, published over the past 10 years.
Results. Modern methods of PGS, indications for it, clinical effectiveness of IVF programs with PGS are described.
Conclusion. Currently, data on the effectiveness of PGS are contradictory. According to the Cochrane systematic review, there is no strong evidence for the effectiveness of ASG in increasing live birth rates. Data on the use of PGS in men with impaired spermatogenesis are also uncertain. However, PGS is increasingly being used in IVF clinics, based on the opposing viewpoint that no matter how PGS is performed, its use increases the frequency of embryo implantation and reduces the risk of spontaneous abortions, thereby increasing the effectiveness of ART programs, and also increases the likelihood of birth. healthy child.

1. Coonen E., DeRycke M., Kokkalietal G. Data from the ESHRE PGD Consortium. In: Abstract book of the 31st ESHRE Annual Meeting, Lisbon, Portugal, 14-17 June 2015. Hum Reprod. 2015; 30(Suppl. 1): i1-i501. doi: 10.1093/humrep/30.Supplement_1.1.

2. Cimadomo D., Capalbo A., Ubaldi F.M., Scarica C., Palagiano A., Canipari R., Rienzi L. The impact of biopsy on human embryo developmental potential during preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Biomed. Res. Int. 2016; 2016: 7193075.

3. Munné S., Morrison L., Fung J., Márquez C., Weier U., Bahçe M. et al. Spontaneous abortions are reduced after preconception of translocations. J. Assist. reproduction. Genet. 1998; 15(5): 290-6.

4. Munné S., Magli C., Cohen J., Morton P., Sadowy S., Gianaroli L. et al. Positive outcome after preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos. Hum. reproduction. 1999; 14(9): 2191-9.

5. Simpson J.L. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis at 20 years. Prenat. Diagn. 2010; 30(7): 682-95.

6. Gardner R.J.M., Sutherland G.R. Chromosome abnormalities and genetic conseling. Oxford: University Press; 2004.

7. Fragouli E., Lenzi M., Ross R., Katz-Jaffe M., Schoolcraft W.B., Wells D. Comprehensive molecular cytogenetic analysis of the human blastocyst stage. Hum. reproduction. 2008; 23(11): 2596-608.

8. Harper J., ed. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Cambridge: University Press; 2009.

9. Munné S., Fragouli E., Colls P., Katz-Jaffe M., Schoolcraft W., Wells D. Improved detection of aneuploid blastocysts using a new 12-chromosome FISH test. reproduction. Biomed. online. 2010; 20(1): 92-7.

10. Geraedts J., Montag M., Magli M.C., Repping S., Handyside A., Staessen C. et al. Polar body arrayCGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results. Hum. reproduction. 2011; 26(11): 3173-80.

11. Verlinsky Y., Cieslak J., Freidine M., Ivakhnenko V., Wolf G., Kovalinskaya L. et al. Pregnancies following pre-conception diagnosis of common aneuploidies by fluorescent in-situ hybridization. Hum. reproduction. 1995; 10(7): 1923-7.

12. Menasha J., Levy B., Hirschhorn K., Kardon N.B. Incidence and spectrum of chromosome abnormalities in spontaneous abortions: new insights from a 12-year study. Genet. Med. 2005; 7(4): 251-63.

13. Verlinsky Y., Rechitsky S., Verlinsky O., Masciangelo C., Lederer K., Kuliev A. Preimplantation diagnosis for early-onset Alzheimer disease caused by V717L mutation. JAMA. 2002; 287(8): 1018-21.

14. Bredenoord A., Dondorp W., Pennings G., de Die-Smulders C., Smeets B., de Wert G. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for mitochondrial DNA disorders: ethical guidance for clinical practice. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2009; 17(12): 1550-9.

15. Tajima H., Sueoka K., Moon S. Y., Nakabayashi A., Sakurai T., Murakoshi Y. et al. The development of novel quantification assay for mitochondrial DNA heteroplasmy aimed at preimplantation genetic diagnosis of Leigh encephalopathy. J. Assist. reproduction. Genet. 2007; 24(6): 227-32.

16. Steffann J., Frydman N., Gigarel N., Burlet P., Ray P.F., Fanchin R. et al. Analysis of mtDNA variant segregation during early human embryonic development: a tool for successful NARP preimplantation diagnosis. J. Med. Genet. 2006; 43(3): 244-7.

17. Russian Federation. Law. On the basics of protecting the health of citizens in the Russian Federation N 323-FZ of November 21, 2011. Rossiyskaya Gazeta. Federal release. 2011; No. 5639.

18. Munné S., Alikani M., Tomkin G., Grifo J., Cohen J. Embryo morphology, developmental rates, and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities. fertil. Steril. 1995; 64(2): 382-91.

19. Hassold T., Hunt P. Maternal age and chromosomally abnormal pregnancies: what we know and what we wish we knew. Curr. Opin. Pediatr. 2009; 21(6): 703-8.

20. Harton G.L., Munne S., Surrey M., Grifo J., Kaplan B., McCulloh D.H. et al. Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. fertil. Steril. 2013; 100(6): 1695-703.

21. Hassold T.J., Matsuyama A., Newlands I.M., Matsuura J.S., Jacobs P.A., Manuel B. et al. A cytogenetic study of spontaneous abortions in Hawaii. Ann. Hum. Genet. 1978; 41(4): 443-54.

22. Marquard K., Westphal L.M., Milki A.A., Lathi R.B. Etiology of recurrent pregnancy loss in women over the age of 35 years. fertil. Steril. 2010; 94(4): 1473-7.

23. Stephenson M.D., Awartani K.A., Robinson W.P. Cytogenetic analysis of miscarriages from couples with recurrent miscarriage: a case-control study. Hum. reproduction. 2002; 17(2): 446-51.

24. Werner M., Reh A., Grifo J., Perle M.A. Characteristics of chromosomal abnormalities diagnosed after spontaneous abortions in an infertile population. J. Assist. reproduction. Genet. 2012; 29(8): 817-20.

25. Munne S., Chen S., Colls P., Garrisi J., Zheng X., Cekleniak N. et al. Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6000 cleavage-stage embryos. reproduction. Biomed. online. 2007; 14(5): 628-34.

26. Rubio C., Rodrigo L., Mercader A., ​​Mateu E., Buendia P., Pehlivan T. et al. Impact of chromosomal abnormalities on preimplantation embryo development. Prenat. Diagn. 2007; 27(8): 748-56.

27. Sandalinas M., Sadowy S., Alikani M., Calderon G., Cohen J., Munne S. Developmental ability of chromosomally abnormal human embryos to develop to the blastocyst stage. Hum. reproduction. 2001; 16(9): 1954-8.

28. Magli M.C., Jones G.M., Gras L., Gianaroli L., Korman I., Trounson A.O. Chromosome mosaicism in day 3 aneuploid embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts in vitro. Hum. reproduction. 2000; 15(8): 1781-6.

29. Marquez C., Sandalinas M., Bahce M., Alikani M., Munne S. Chromosome abnormalities in 1255 cleavage-stage human embryos. reproduction. Biomed. online. 2000; 1(1): 17-26.

30. Alfarawati S., Fragouli E., Colls P., Stevens J., Gutierrez-Mateo C., Schoolcraft W.B. et al. The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. fertil. Steril. 2011; 95(2): 520-4.

31. Yang Z., Liu J., Collins G.S., Salem S.A., Liu X., Lyle S.S. et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol. Cytogenet. 2012; 5(1): 24.

32. Kramer Y. G., Kofinas J. D., Melzer K., Noyes N., McCaffrey C., Buldo-Licciardi  J. et al. Assessing morphokinetic parameters via time lapse microscopy (TLM) to predict euploidy: are aneuploidy risk classification models universal? J. Assist. reproduction. Genet. 2014; 2014: 24962789.

33. Rubio C., Bellver J., Rodrigo L., Bosch E., Mercader A., ​​Vidal C. et al. Preimplantation genetic screening using fluorescence in situ hybridization in patients with repetitive implantation failure and advanced maternal age: two randomized trials. fertil. Steril. 2013; 99(5): 1400-7.

34. Schoolcraft W.B., Katz-Jaffe M.G., Stevens J.., Rawlins M, Munne S. Preimplantation aneuploidy testing for infertile patients of advanced maternal age: a randomized prospective trial. fertil. Steril. 2009; 92(1): 157-62.

35. Munne S., Chen S., Fischer J., Colls P., Zheng X., Stevens J. et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis reduces pregnancy loss in women aged 35 years and older with a history of recurrent miscarriages. fertil. Steril. 2005; 84(2): 331-5.

36. Scott R.T. Jr., Ferry K., Su J., Tao X., Scott K., Treff N.R. Comprehensive chromosome screening is highly predictive of the reproductive potential of human embryos: a prospective, blinded, nonselection study. fertil. Steril. 2012; 97(4): 870-5.

37. Grifo J.A., Hodes-Wertz B., Lee H.L., Amperloquio E., Clarke-Williams M., Adler A. Single thawed euploid embryo transfer improves IVF pregnancy, miscarriage, and multiple gestation outcomes and has similar implantation rates as egg donation. J. Assist. reproduction. Genet. 2013; 30(2): 259-64.

38. Platteau P., Staessen C. , Michiels A., Van Steirteghem A., Liebaers I., Devroey P. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in women older than 37 years. fertil. Steril. 2005; 84(2): 319-24.

39. Lee H.L., McCulloh D.H., Hodes-Wertz B., Adler A., ​​McCaffrey C., Grifo J.A. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening improves implantation and live birth in women age 40 through 43. J. Assist. reproduction. Genet. 2015; 32(3): 435-44.

40. Ford H.B., Schust D.J. Recurrent pregnancy loss: etiology, diagnosis, and therapy. Rev. obstet. Gynecol. 2009; 2:76-83.

41. Rao L., Murthy K., Babu A., Venkata P., Deenadayal M., Singh L. Chromosome inversions and a novel chromosome insertion associated with recurrent miscarriages in South India. Arch. Gynecol. obstet. 2005; 272(4): 273-7.

42. Mozdarani H., Meybodi A.M., Zari-Moradi S. A cytogenetic study of couples with recurrent spontaneous abortions and infertile patients with recurrent IVF/ICSI failure. Indian J. Hum. Genet 2008; 14:1-6.

43. Kochhar P.K., Ghosh P. Reproductive outcome of couples with recurrent miscarriage and balanced chromosomal abnormalities. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2013; 39:113-20.

44. Carp H., Feldman B., Oelsner G., Schiff E. Parental karyotype and subsequent live births in recurrent miscarriage. fertil. Steril. 2004; 81(5): 1296-301.

45. Franssen M.T., Musters M., van der Veen F., Repping S., Leschot N.J., Bossuyt P.M. et al. Reproductive outcome after PGD in couples with recurrent miscarriage carrying a structural chromosome abnormality: a systematic review. Hum. reproduction. update. 2011; 17(4): 467-75.

46. Fridström M., Ahrlund-Richter L., Iwarsson E., Malmgren H., Inzunza J., Rosenlund B. et al. Clinical outcome of treatment cycles using preimplantation genetic diagnosis for structural chromosomal abnormalities. Prenat. Diagn. 2001; 21(9): 781-7.

47. Sugiura-Ogasawara M., Suzumori K. Can preimplantation genetic diagnosis improve success rates in recurrent aborters with translocations? Hum. reproduction. 2005; 20(12): 3267-70.

48. Wang N., Zheng Y.M., Li L., Jin F. Preimplantation genetic screening: an effective testing for infertile and repeated miscarriage patients? obstet. Gynecol. Int. 2010; 2010: 120130.

49. Mantzouratou A., Mania A., Fragouli E., Xanthopoulou L., Tashkandi S., Fordham K. et al. Variable aneuploidy mechanisms in embryos from couples with poor reproductive histories undergoing preimplantation genetic screening. Hum. reproduction. 2007; 22(7): 1844-51.

50. Yang Z., Lin J., Zhang J., Fong W.I., Li P., Zhao R. et al. Randomized comparison of next-generation sequencing and array comparative genomic hybridization for preimplantation genetic screening: a pilot study. BMC MedGenomics. 2015; 8:30. doi: 10.1186/s12920-015-0110-4.

Received on 03.11.2017

Accepted for publication on 11.11.2017

Kulakova Elena Vladimirovna, Candidate of Medical Sciences, Senior Researcher, Department of Assistive Technologies in the Treatment of Infertility, FSBI NCAGiP
them. academician V.I. Kulakov of the Ministry of Health of Russia. Address: 117997, Russia, Moscow, st. Academician Oparina, 4. Phone: 8 (495) 438-13-41. E-mail: [email protected]
Kalinina Elena Anatolyevna, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Associate Professor, Head. Department of Assistive Technologies in the Treatment of Infertility of the Federal State Budgetary Institution NTsAGiP them. academician V.I. Kulakov of the Ministry of Health of Russia. Address: 117997, Russia, Moscow, st. Academician Oparina, 4. Phone: 8 (495) 438-13-41. E-mail: [email protected]
Trofimov Dmitry Yurievich, Doctor of Biological Sciences, Associate Professor, Head. Department of Clinical and Molecular Genetics, FGBU NTsAGiP them. academician V.I. Kulakov of the Ministry of Health of Russia.
Address: 117997, Russia, Moscow, st. Academician Oparina, 4. Phone: 8 (495) 438-49-51. E-mail: [email protected]
Makarova Natalya Petrovna, Ph.D., Senior Researcher Department of Assistive Technologies in the Treatment of Infertility FGBU NTsAGiP them. academician V.I. Kulakov of the Ministry of Health of Russia. Address: 117997, Russia, Moscow, st. Academician Oparina, 4. Phone: 8 (495) 438-77-00. E-mail: [email protected]
Khechumyan Lusine Robertovna, postgraduate student of the Department of Assistive Technologies in the Treatment of Infertility, FGBU NCAGiP named after A.I. academician V.I. Kulakov of the Ministry of Health of Russia. Address: 117997, Russia, Moscow, st. Academician Oparina, 4. Phone: 8 (495) 438-25-01. E-mail: [email protected]
Dudarova Alina Khasanovna, post-graduate student of the Department of Assistive Technologies in the Treatment of Infertility, FGBU NTsAGiP them. academician V.I. Kulakov of the Ministry of Health of Russia. Address: 117997, Russia, Moscow, st. Academician Oparina, 4. Phone: 8 (495) 438-25-01. E-mail: [email protected]

For citation: Kulakova E.V., Kalinina E.A., Trofimov D.Yu., Makarova N.P., Khechumyan L.R., Dudarova A.Kh. Assisted reproductive technologies in couples at high risk of genetic disorders. Preimplantation genetic screening. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2017; 8:21-7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2017.8.21-7

ICSI at St. Mary Women’s Health Clinic in Vladivostok

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection, or ICSI (from
English abbreviation ICSI) – assisted reproductive
technology that is applied when spermatozoa, due to various
defects, unable to fertilize the egg. In such cases, they
administered artificially using microsurgical instruments. Method
ICSI is an addition to the procedure

IVF.

After fertilization, the egg turns into an embryo. Behind the process
fertilization and the rate of fragmentation of the embryo is observed by the embryologist, he
daily evaluates the progress of the process and keeps special records.

When is ICSI required?

The main indications for the procedure (from
order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation No. 803n dated July 30, 2020):

  • Severe impairment of spermatogenesis;
  • Ejaculatory dysfunction;
  • Absence or low percentage of fertilization (less than 20%) of oocytes in
    previous IVF program;
  • Small number of oocytes (less than 4).

How is the procedure?

The ICSI method is used in combination with IVF.

At the preparation stage, a man gives a spermogram, according to the results
which (in the case of low-quality sperm) the doctor determines the indications
to ICSI.

During conventional IVF, sperm and eggs are simply mixed together
as a result, fertilization occurs naturally. At
The ICSI embryologist selects the appropriate spermatozoon with the help of
microsurgical instruments, introduces it into the egg.

Are there contraindications for ICSI?

The procedure has the same contraindications as IVF, according to
Appendix No. 2 to the order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation No. 107 n dated August 30, 2012:

  • Severe diseases in the expectant mother, in which pregnancy is not
    recommended as it endangers the woman’s life and
    child.
  • Mental illness in a woman in which pregnancy is not
    recommended.

These conditions are contraindications in general to any pregnancy.