International Journal of
Reproductive Biomedicine
Sat, Dec 28, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 10, Issue 2 (7-2012)
IJRM 2012, 10(2): 131-136 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Eftekhar M, Mohammadian F, Yousefnejad F, Molaei B, Aflatoonian A. Comparison of conventional IVF versus ICSI in non-male factor, normoresponder patients. IJRM 2012; 10 (2) :131-136
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-265-en.html
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-265-en.html
Maryam Eftekhar1 
, Farnaz Mohammadian * 2, Fariba Yousefnejad1 , Behnaz Molaei3 , Abbas Aflatoonian1
, Farnaz Mohammadian * 2, Fariba Yousefnejad1 , Behnaz Molaei3 , Abbas Aflatoonian1
1- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
2- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Azadi Avenue, Zanjan, Iran ,Mohammadian_farnaz@yahoo.com
3- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Azadi Avenue, Zanjan, Iran
2- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Azadi Avenue, Zanjan, Iran ,
3- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Azadi Avenue, Zanjan, Iran
Abstract: (4704 Views)
Background: Conventional IVF and ICSI are two common techniques to achieve fertilization. IVF has long been used for treatment of infertility, although it is not an effective treatment in severe male infertility. The use of ICSI has been expanded in severe male factor and fertilization failure after IVF cycle. In spite of the widespread use of ICSI in patients with non-male factor infertility, there is still little evidence to confirm its effectiveness in this population. Objective: To evaluate assisted reproductive technology outcomes between IVF and ICSI cycles in non-male factor, normoresponder patients.
Materials and Methods: A total of 220 non-male factors, normoresponder patients who were indicated for ART were enrolled in this study. The patients received standard long GnRH agonist or GnRH antagonist protocols for ovarian stimulation and after oocytes retrieval, the patients were divided into two groups (IVF and ICSI groups). In IVF group (n=112), all of retrieved oocytes were treated by conventional IVF and in ICSI group (n=88), microinjection (ICSI) was done on all of retrieved oocytes.
Results: In IVF group, fertilization and implantation rates were significantly higher than ICSI group (66.22% and 16.67% in IVF group versus 57.46% and 11.17% in ICSI group, respectively). Chemical and clinical pregnancy rates were statistically higher in IVF group as compared with the ICSI group (42.9% vs. 27.3% and 35.7% vs. 21.5%, respectively).
Conclusion: According to our study, the routine use of ICSI is not improved fertilization, implantation and chemical pregnancy rates and is not recommended in non-male factor, normozoospermic patients.
Materials and Methods: A total of 220 non-male factors, normoresponder patients who were indicated for ART were enrolled in this study. The patients received standard long GnRH agonist or GnRH antagonist protocols for ovarian stimulation and after oocytes retrieval, the patients were divided into two groups (IVF and ICSI groups). In IVF group (n=112), all of retrieved oocytes were treated by conventional IVF and in ICSI group (n=88), microinjection (ICSI) was done on all of retrieved oocytes.
Results: In IVF group, fertilization and implantation rates were significantly higher than ICSI group (66.22% and 16.67% in IVF group versus 57.46% and 11.17% in ICSI group, respectively). Chemical and clinical pregnancy rates were statistically higher in IVF group as compared with the ICSI group (42.9% vs. 27.3% and 35.7% vs. 21.5%, respectively).
Conclusion: According to our study, the routine use of ICSI is not improved fertilization, implantation and chemical pregnancy rates and is not recommended in non-male factor, normozoospermic patients.
Type of Study: Original Article |
References
1. Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A. A review of ten years experience of ICSI. Hum Reprod Update 2004; 10: 19-28. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/dmh004]
2. Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet 1992; 340: 17-18. [DOI:10.1016/0140-6736(92)92425-F]
3. Griffiths TA, Murdoch AP, Herbert M. Embryonic development in vitro is compromised by the ICSI procedure. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 1592-1596. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/15.7.1592]
4. Van Landuyt L, De Vos A, Joris H, Verheyen G, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A. Blastocyst formation in in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: Influence of the fertilization procedure. Fertil Steril 2005; 83: 1397-1403. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.10.054]
5. Staessen C, Camus M, Clasen K, De Vos A, Van Steirteghem A. Conventional in-vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in sibling oocytes from couples with tubal infertility and normozoospermic semen. Hum Reprod 1999; 10: 2474-2479. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/14.10.2474]
6. Ou YC, Lan KC, Huang FJ, Kung FT, Lan TH, Chang SY. Comparison of in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in extremely low oocyte retrieval cycles. Fertil Steril 2010; 93: 96-100. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.09.039]
7. Gozlan I, Dor A, Farber B, Meirow D, Feinstein S, Levron J. Comparing intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization in patients with single oocyte retrieval. Fertil Steril 2007; 87: 515-518. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.07.1515]
8. Bhattacharya S, Hamilton M, Shaaban M, Khalaf Y, Seddler M, Ghobara T, et al. Conventional in-vitro fertilisation versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection for the treatment of non-male-factor infertility: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2001; 357: 2075-2079. [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)05179-5]
9. Hwang JL, Seow KM, Lin YH, Hsieh BC, Huang LW, Chen HJ, et al. IVF versus ICSI in sibling oocytes from patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 1261-1265. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/deh786]
10. Oehninger S, Gosden RG. Should ICSI be the treatment of choice for all cases of in-vitro conception? Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 2237-2242. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/17.9.2237]
11. Fishel S, Aslam I, Lisi F, Rinaldi L, Timson J, Jacobson M, et al. Should ICSI be the treatment of choice for all cases of in-vitro conception? Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 1278-1283. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/15.6.1278]
12. Mansour RT, Abou-Setta AM, Kamal O. Assisted reproductive technology in Egypt, 2003-2004: Results generated from the Egyptian IVF registry. Mid East Fertil Soc J 2011; 16: 1-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.mefs.2010.11.006]
13. Hershlag A, Paine T, Kvapil G, Feng H, Napolitano B. In vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection split: an insemination method to prevent fertilization failure. Fertil Steril 2002; 77: 229-232. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02978-8]
14. Verheyen G, Tournaye H, Staessen C, De Vos A, Vandervorst M, Van Steirteghem A. Controlled comparison of conventional in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in patients with asthenozoospermia. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 2313-2319. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/14.9.2313]
15. Horne G, Atkinson A, Brison DR, Radford J, Yin JAL, Edi-Osagie ECO, et al. Achieving pregnancy against the odds: successful implantation of frozen-thawed embryos generated by ICSI using spermatozoa banked prior to chemo/radiotherapy for Hodgkin's disease and acute leukaemia: Case Report. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 107-109. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/16.1.107]
16. Plachot M, Belaisch-Allart J, Mayenga JM, Chouraqui A, Tesquier L, Serkine AM. Outcome of conventional IVF and ICSI on sibling oocytes in mild male factor infertility. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 362-369. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/17.2.362]
17. Kim HH, Bundorf MK, Behr B, McCallum SW. Use and outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection for non-male factor infertility. Fertil Steril 2007; 88: 622-628. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.12.013]
18. vander Westerlaken L, Helmerhorst F, Dieben S, Naaktgeboren N. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection as a treatment for unexplained total fertilization failure or low fertilization after conventional in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2005; 83: 612-617. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.08.029]
19. Khamsi F, Yavas Y, Roberge S, Lacanna IC, Wong JC, Endman M. The Status of Controlled Prospective Clinical Trials for Efficacy of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection in In Vitro Fertilization for Non-Male Factor Infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet 2000; 17: 504-507. [DOI:10.1023/A:1009441808115]
20. Dumoulin JCM, Coonen E, Bras M, van Wissen LCP, Ignoul-Vanvuchelen R, Bergers-Jansen JM, et al. Comparison of in-vitro development of embryos originating from either conventional in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 402-409. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/15.2.402]
21. Ola B, Afnan M, Sharif K, Papaioannou S, Hammadieh N, Barratt CL. Should ICSI be the treatment of choice for all cases of in-vitro conception? Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 2485-2490. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/16.12.2485]
22. The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in 2006: Evidence and Evolution. Hum Reprod Update 2007; 13: 515-526. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/dmm024]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
