Work

Corrigendum. First PGT-A using human in vivo blastocysts recovered by uterine lavage: comparison with matched IVF embryo controls

Year: 2021

Type: erratum

Abstract: Hum Reprod 2019:35:70–80 In the article entitled “First PGT-A using human in vivo blastocysts recovered by uterine lavage: compared with matched IVF controls” (https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez242), the authors would like to add the following information: In the original Munne et al. manuscript, the following manuscript was not cited: “Novel uterine lavage system for recovery of human embryos fertilized and matured in vivo.” The authors are now referencing this manuscript with the following citation: Nadal A, Najmabadi S, Addis B, Buster John E. Novel uterine lavage system for recovery of human embryos fertilized and matured in vivo. Med Devices 2019;12:133–141. https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S193067. The Human Reproduction Editorial Team informed the authors on 01 February 2021 that Nadal et al. held duplicate data with Munne et al. as a response to Murtinger et al. The Nadal manuscript was published 24 April 2019, and the Munne et al. was published 01 January 2020. The Nadal manuscript reports on the specifications of the uterine lavage catheter used in these studies for a medical device journal; it was not intended to report any clinical data. In the process of peer review, Nadal et al. amended the manuscript with lavage efficiency data for the 134 uterine lavage cycles. As a result, Munne et al. and Nadal et al. had overlapping data on uterine lavage efficiency. Nonetheless, there are distinctions between the papers which warrant publication of each: IVF Control Group: Munne et al. reports on 20 IVF controls performed on subjects who had undergone a uterine lavage cycle with embryos recovered. In vivo vs. in vitro Comparison: Munne et al. performs an in vivo vs. in vitro comparison between ploidy and morphology using embryos from the same women. No other manuscript has ever published an in vivo vs. in vitro comparison with human embryos. Preliminary pregnancy results: Munne et al. reports on first pregnancy results of in vivo PGT-A screened euploid embryos transferred into infertile recipients. hCG levels in women after uterine lavage: Munne et al. provides extensive detail of the residual hCG levels post-lavage and how each residual hCG came to resolution. Only the gross number of residual hCGs were reported in Nadal et al. Figure 3 from the original article illustrates lavage efficiency per cohort up to cohort #8 when there were actually 11 cohorts reported, comprising 134 uterine lavage cycles. The authors are re-submitting Figure 3 to display lavage efficiency data from all cohorts. Results of cell recovery after uterine lavage in women. Results are categorized by 1) percent of cycles with both oocytes and embryos recovered (blue bar), 2) percent of cycles with embryos recovered (red bar), and 3) percent of cycles with blastocysts recovered (green bar). Note: Cohort 3 was excluded from analysis as cycles were unstimulated. Results of cell recovery after uterine lavage in women. Results are categorized by 1) percent of cycles with both oocytes and embryos recovered (blue bar), 2) percent of cycles with embryos recovered (red bar), and 3) percent of cycles with blastocysts recovered (green bar). Note: Cohort 3 was excluded from analysis as cycles were unstimulated. They were not initially illustrated due to the variability of the data relative to the first eight cohorts which showed a consistent pattern of improvement. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused. These details have been corrected only in this corrigendum to preserve the published version of record.

Source: Human Reproduction

DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deab097