Photo: MD Group
About how domestic embryology laboratories look today, what challenges stimulate industry development, and what prospects Russian developments have, Alexander Yurievich Vysotsky, Head of the Embryology Laboratory at the E.G. Lebedeva Center for Innovative Reproductive Technologies of the MD Group Clinical Hospital of the Mother and Child Group of Companies, told Marus Media in an interview.
Expert Profile
Alexander Yurievich Vysotsky – PhD, Head of the Embryology Laboratory at the E.G. Lebedeva Center for Innovative Reproductive Technologies of the MD Group Clinical Hospital of the Mother and Child Group of Companies. Member of the Russian Association of Human Reproduction and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Author of over 15 scientific works on male and female infertility problems.
Education and Qualifications
2000 – Altai State Medical University.
2005 – Defended PhD dissertation on problems of improving infertility treatment efficacy using IVF and ICSI methods.
Professional Experience
Over 20 years in clinical embryology.
2000 – Director of Siberian Institute of Human Reproduction and Genetics.
2008 – IVF embryologist at MD Group Clinical Hospital.
2019 – Head of embryology laboratory at MD Group.
Professional interests: Masters full spectrum of micromanipulation technologies (ICSI, embryo biopsy, assisted hatching); oversees implementation of new technologies and protocols in network laboratories.
Professional skills and scientific interests: Assessment of obtained biomaterial quality: sperm and oocytes; laboratory fertilization; embryo development monitoring; cryopreservation of embryos, oocytes, sperm; laboratory fertilization; creation and control of optimal culture conditions; assisted hatching; preimplantation genetic testing (PGT); improvement of cryopreservation methods (vitrification); implementation of artificial intelligence systems in embryology.
“We Don't Strive for Isolation, Our Goal Is Technological Independence and Cosmopolitanism”
– How would you characterize the current level of Russian ART centers, including your department, against the global market backdrop? In which aspects do we already match leaders, and what still needs work?
– If we consider the technological equipment of leading Russian ART centers, we've achieved parity with European and American clinics on key parameters. However, the current stage is characterized not simply by catch-up development but by formation of a fundamentally new market architecture, where import substitution has become not a forced measure but a driver of technological evolution.
Russian IVF technologies have reached a high level and in many ways match leading European and U.S. clinics. We confidently compete in technical equipment and therapeutic protocols. An important advantage is procedure accessibility for patients thanks to mandatory health insurance programs covering more than half of IVF cycles in the country.
However, in population coverage, our indicator is still below the European standard of 1,500 cycles per million population. This relates to different patient engagement, economic factors, and regional specifics. Infrastructure imbalances persist, and not all regions have yet managed to create world-class laboratories. We're working on standardization and further improvement. But it's important to understand that technologically our leading clinics can perform the full spectrum of modern manipulations and actively participate in professional communities at the ESHRE and ASRM, RAHR level, which promotes constant specialist qualification growth.
A competitive advantage remains relatively low prices. This isn't a consequence of poor quality but historically established pricing logic and high market competition. Consumable and equipment quality in leading centers meets global standards.
– How dependent are Russian clinics on drugs, imported equipment, and consumables? How do you solve related challenges?
– The main part of specialized equipment and biological media was previously supplied from Europe, the USA, and Japan – countries that imposed sanctions. This undoubtedly created difficulties. However, in recent years the situation has changed significantly: we successfully implemented Russian ovulation stimulation drugs – gonadotropins, domestic cell culture media, and Russian incubators with characteristics matching Western analogs appeared. Now, as far as I know, work is actively underway on incubators with time-lapse monitoring. We don't strive for isolation; our goal is technological independence and cosmopolitanism. Creating the laboratory, we laid infrastructure allowing powering any equipment in the world. This gives us freedom of choice – to work with the best systems, regardless of their origin.
Three main pillars – how to obtain cells, where to place them, and what to grow them in – this is the import substitution path we're now successfully following. And I think if significant progress occurred over several years, then in the future we have every prospect of being independent from the supplier market.
Additionally, new partnerships with Asian manufacturers have opened and are developing, particularly from China, which has rapid ART technological segment growth, and AI monitoring systems are actively developing. We cooperate and test their solutions. We can say that for us current challenges became a stimulus for import substitution and supplier diversification, which laid the foundation for technological independence.