Evidence suggests that the pericentric inversion of chromosome 9 (inv(9)) does not affect the aneuploidy rate (38.5%) after IVF. Herein, we report a successful live female twin birth through IVF/ICSI with a high aneuploidy rate from a couple within which the infertile father has inv(9)(p12q13). A couple (a 34-year-old male and a 35-year-old female) was referred to our clinic due to infertility. The wife has a child with her previous husband. Results from the infertility workup of both parents were normal. Karyotyping revealed that the inv(9)(p12q13) of the father was the only cytogenetic abnormality. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) after IVF/ICSI revealed a high aneuploidy rate (77%; 10/13). Two euploid blastocysts were transferred, resulting in a successful live female twin birth. The presented case highlights the possibility that inv(9)(p12q13) in males may impact the fertility and euploidy rate. PGT-A facilitates the selection of qualified blastocysts for the optimization of live-birth outcomes.

Background and Objectives: For many patients, the induction-to-delivery interval is shorter with Propess than with Prostin E2. However, some patients also require Prostin E2 to sufficiently boost their dinoprostone levels to achieve cervical change and vaginal delivery. In this study, we compared the efficacy of different timings of Prostin E2 administration after Propess use. Materials and Methods: This single-institution retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 2020 and August 2023. The inclusion criterion was an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score ≤ 6) after Propess use for 8 h. We divided the patients into three groups based on the addition of Prostin E2 at the 8th (group 1), 12th (group 2), and 24th (group 3) hour after Propess insertion. The primary outcome was the cesarean section rate. The secondary outcomes were the induction-to-birth interval, Bishop score at 24 h, neonatal outcomes, and the predictors of labor induction duration. Results: A total of 63 patients were analyzed across three groups based on the timing of Prostin E2 administration (8, 12, and 24 h). The gestational age differed significantly between groups (p < 0.001), with the highest age being observed in the 24 h group. The 8 h group had the shortest induction-to-birth interval (p < 0.001) and the highest Bishop scores after 24 h of Propess use (p < 0.001). Blood loss was lowest in the 12 h group (p = 0.027). No significant differences were found in relation to the mode of birth, tachysystole, neonatal birth weight, or Apgar scores. A multivariable analysis identified gestational age (β = 3.33; p = 0.015) and Bishop score after 24 h of PGE2 (β = −1.99; p < 0.001) as being independent predictors of labor duration. Conclusions: administering Prostin E2 to patients who had a poor response after Propess use was safe; additionally, adding it at the 8th hour after Propess initiation could result in a shorter induction-to-birth interval.