title: [Invasive and noninvasive analysis of the meiotic spindle of human oocytes obtained from stimulate cycles: preliminary results].
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the concordance between polarization microscopy and confocal microscopy techniques in the evaluation of the meiotic spindle of human oocytes matured in vivo.
  
  
  METHODS
  Prospective study that evaluated oocytes with the first polar extruded body obtained from infertile women who had undergone ovarian stimulation for intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The oocytes with the first polar extruded body were evaluated by polarization microscopy and were then immediately fixed and stained for microtubule and chromatin evaluation by high-performance confocal microscopy. We determined the correlation of polarization microscopy with confocal microscopy in the detection of meiotic oocyte anomalies, and we also evaluated the percentage of oocytes with a visible and non-visible cell spindle by polarization microscopy and with meiotic normality and abnormalities by confocal microscopy. Confidence intervals, Kappa's index and concordance between the methodologies were calculated, considering immunofluorescence microscopy analysis as the golden-standard for evaluating normal spindle and oocyte chromosome distribution.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We observed that 72.7% of metaphase II oocytes with a nonvisible meiotic spindle by polarization microscopy showed no meiotic abnormalities by confocal analysis and 55.6% of metaphase II oocytes with a visible meiotic spindle by polarization microscopy were found to be abnormal oocytes by the confocal analysis. Only 44.4% of oocytes with a visible meiotic spindle by polarization microscopy were found to be normal by confocal analysis. Concordance between the methods was 51.1% (Kappa: 0.11; 95%CI -0.0958 - 0.319).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The low correlation between polarization microscopy and confocal microscopy in the assessment of oocyte meiotic spindle suggests that visualization of the meiotic spindle of human oocytes at metaphase II by polarization microscopy is not a good indicator of oocyte meiotic normality.
authors.affiliation: Departamento de Ginecologia, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil.
authors.forename: Luciana Azôr
authors.initials: LA
authors.lastname: Dib
authors.forename: Michele Gomes
authors.initials: MG
authors.lastname: da Broi
authors.forename: Maria Cristina Picinato Medeiros
authors.initials: MC
authors.lastname: de Araújo
authors.forename: Roberta Cristina
authors.initials: RC
authors.lastname: Giorgenon
authors.forename: Rui Alberto
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Ferriani
authors.forename: Paula Andrea de Albuquerque Sales
authors.initials: PA
authors.lastname: Navarro
mesh_terms: D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D018613:Microscopy, Confocal; D008859:Microscopy, Polarization; D009865:Oocytes / Q000648:ultrastructure*; D010062:Ovulation Induction; D011247:Pregnancy; D011446:Prospective Studies; D008941:Spindle Apparatus