Graphic 1

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
CONTROL GROUP
LASER PULSE
50% MICRO-SUCTION
TREHALOSE
40% SUCROSE

30%

20%

10%

0%
TRANSFERRED LOST SURVIVAL ARRESTED EXPANDED HATCHED
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

CONTROL GROUP
50% LASER PULSE
MICRO-SUCTION
TREHALOSE
40% SUCROSE

30%

20%

10%

0%
TRANSFERRED LOST SURVIVAL ARRESTED EXPANDED HATCHED
 Arrested Rate Expanded Rate
83.95% 86.95%
25% 22.00% 90% 80.00%
76.31%
20.00% 80%
18.42% 66.00%
20% 70%
16.04%
13.04% 60%
15%
50%
40%
10%
30%
5% 20%
10%
0% 0%
CG LP MS TRH SUC CG LP MS TRH SUC

Survival Rate Hatched Rate

100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
56.52%
100% 60%
97.05% 50%
98%
39.50% 40.00%
96% 40% 34.21%

94% 92.50% 30% 22.00%

92% 20%

90% 10%

88% 0%
CG LP MS TRH SUC CG LP MS TRH SUC
 Operator Total Number
60%

52.83% 52.63%
50.86%
50.00%
50% 48.27%
45.78% 45.78% 46.55% 47.16%
46.55% ME
45.28%
39.18% CV
40.54% 39.62%
40% RZ
36.84%
37.14%
34.93% 36.14%

31.57%
29.82%
30% 28.91%

20.27%
20% 17.54%

12.85%

10% 8.43%
7.54% 7.54%
5.17%
2.58%

0%
CG CG LP LP S S H H C C
N G N G N
M
G
M TR TR SU SU
IO IN IO IN IO IN N G N G
AT AT RM TIO IN TIO IN
IC A RM IC A CAT RM A RM A RM
IF W TR
IF W IFI W
A
IFI
C A IFI
C A
ITR VI ITR ITR W
ITR W
V V V V
 Survival Rate
A
100% p= 0.012
111/111 53/53 55/55

98%
66/68
96%

94%

92% 74/80

90%

88%

86%

84%

82%

80%
CG LP MS TRH SUC

Figure 2.Survival rate between control group (CG) and the different collapsing techniques used during the project.
Significant difference was observed between the control group (CG) and Laser Pulse (LP) group. No significant
differences were found when comparing the rest of the groups between each other. CG: Control Group; LP: Laser Pulse;
MS: Micro-suction; TRH: Trehalose; SUC: Sucrose.
 Implantation Rate

25%

20% 6/30

15%

4/30
10% 3/30

5% 1/20
1/30

0%
CG LP MS TRH SUC

Figure 5. Implantation rate between control group (CG) and the different collapsing techniques used during the
project. No significant differences were found when comparing the different groups, however, there was a
tendency in favor of Trehalose compared to the Control Group CG (C). CG: Control Group; LP: Laser Pulse; MS: Micro-suction;
TRH: Trehalose; SUC: Sucrose.
 Hatching Rate
A
p= 0.0065

70%

60% B
p= 0.0105

C 13/23
50%
p= 0.0548

40%
32/81 10/25

30% 13/38

11/50
20%

10%

0%
CG LP MS TRH SUC

Figure 4. Hatching rate between control group (CG) and the different collapsing techniques used during the project.
Significant differences were found when comparing Trehalose (TRH) vs CG (A) and the two different hyperosmotic
solutions used: i) TRH and ii) Sucrose (SUC) vs CG (B). Although not significant, an important tendency was
observed in favor of Laser Pulse (LP) vs CG (C). CG: Control Group; LP: Laser Pulse; MS: Micro-suction; TRH: Trehalose; SUC:
Sucrose.
 Expansion Rate

100% C
B p= 0.0643
A p= 0.0902
90%
p= 0.0311
20/23
80% 68/81
20/25
29/38
70%
33/50
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
CG LP MS TRH SUC

Figure 3. Expanded rate between control group (CG) and the different collapsing techniques used during the
project. Significant difference was demonstrated when Laser Pulse (LP) was compared against CG (A). Although not
significantly different, an important tendency was observed in favor of when Trehalose (TRH) vs CG (B) and the two
different hyperosmotic solutions used: i) TRH and ii) Sucrose (SUC) vs CG (C). CG: Control Group; LP: Laser Pulse; MS: Micro-
suction; TRH: Trehalose; SUC: Sucrose.