The Consequence of Short Insemination Strategy on Sperm Biological Characteristics, Embryo Morphokinetics, and Clinical Outcomes in the IVF Program

Table 3

Comparison of morphokinetics “calculated” variables between two groups.

Time-lapse parameters	Short insemination (n = 247)	Long insemination (n = 278)	p-value
CC2a	10.12 ± 4.85	10.02 ± 4.67	0.82
CC2b	12.04 ± 5.28	12.25 ± 5.04	0.66
CC3a	10.79 ± 5.85	11.90 ± 4.8	0.03
CC3b	14.44 ± 4.91	14.64 ± 3.85	0.63
CC3c	16.93 ± 5.75	16.78 ± 4.14	0.78
CC3d	19.66 ± 8.03	18.62 ± 9.30	0.32
S1	3.15 ± 2.50	3.29 ± 2.70	0.55
S2	2.21 ± 4.10	2.36 ± 4.51	0.71
S3	9.85 ± 7.01	8.84 ± 6.54	0.21

Results are presented as mean ± SD for normal numerical variables. cc2a, t3–t2; cc2b, t4–t2; cc3a, t5–t4; cc3b, t6–t4; cc3c, t7–t4; cc3d, t8–t4; s1, synchronization of cell divisions of first cell cycle (t2-tPNf); s2, synchronization of cell divisions of second cell cycle (t4–t3); s3, synchronization of cell divisions of third cell cycle (t8–t5). p-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Data were compared using independent-samples t-test.