scholarly journals Overcoming male factor infertility with intracytoplasmic sperm injection

2017 ◽  
Vol 63 (8) ◽  
pp. 697-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edson Borges Jr. ◽  
Bianca Ferrarini Zanetti ◽  
Daniela Paes de Almeida Ferreira Braga ◽  
Amanda Souza Setti ◽  
Rita de Cássia Sávio Figueira ◽  
...  

Summary Objective: To evaluate the effect of male factor infertility on intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) outcomes compared with a control group presenting isolated tubal factor. Method: This retrospective study included 743 couples undergoing ICSI as a result of isolated male factor and a control group consisting of 179 couples undergoing ICSI as a result of isolated tubal factor, performed in a private university- -affiliated in vitro fertilization center, between January/2010 and December/2016. Patients were divided into two groups according to maternal age: women ≤35 years old and >35 years old. The effects of infertility causes on laboratorial and clinical ICSI outcomes were evaluated using Student's t-test and (2 test. Results: No differences in controlled ovarian stimulation outcomes were observed between male factor cycles and tubal factor cycles in the two age groups. Implantation (male factor 35.5% vs. tubal factor 32.0%, p=0.340), pregnancy (male factor 46.9% vs. tubal factor 40.9%, p=0.184) and miscarriage (male factor 10.3% vs. tubal factor 10.6%, p=0.572) rates were similar between the infertility groups, irrespective of female age. Considering maternal age, the cancelation rate was higher in older women (>35 years old) undergoing ICSI as a result of male factor infertility (17.4% vs. 8.9%, p=0.013). Conclusion: Our results showed that there is no difference in the outcomes of pregnancy between couples with male or tubal factor infertility, which indicates that ICSI surpasses the worse specific outcomes associated with male factor.

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 2616
Author(s):  
Tanya L. Glenn ◽  
Alex M. Kotlyar ◽  
David B. Seifer

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was originally designed to overcome barriers due to male factor infertility. However, a surveillance study found that ICSI use in non-male factor infertility increased from 15.4% to 66.9% between 1996 and 2012. Numerous studies have investigated fertilization rate, total fertilization failure, and live birth rate per cycle (LBR), comparing the use of ICSI versus conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) for non-male factor infertility. The overwhelming conclusion shows no increase in fertilization rate or LBR per cycle with the use of ICSI for non-male factor infertility. The overuse of ICSI is likely related to the desire to avoid a higher rate of total fertilization failure in IVF. However, data supporting the benefit of using ICSI for non-male factor infertility is lacking, and 33 couples would need to be treated with ICSI unnecessarily to avoid one case of total fertilization failure. Such practice increases the cost to the patient, increases the burden on embryologist’s time, and is a misapplication of resources. Additionally, there remains conflicting data regarding the safety of offspring conceived by ICSI and potential damage to the oocyte. Thus, the use of ICSI should be limited to those with male factor infertility or a history of total fertilization factor infertility due to uncertainties of potential adverse impact and lack of proven benefit in non-male factor infertility.


2018 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. e6
Author(s):  
Andrea Abdala ◽  
Laura Vargas ◽  
Ernesto Gómez Passanante ◽  
Sergio Provenzano ◽  
Javier Singla

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document