Abstract
AbstractDue to the influence of economic, social and many other factors, there are more and more reproductive problems. Originally introduced for managing male factor infertility, intracytoplasmic sperm injection had become the most commonly used fertilization treatment in the world, with broadened indications including low oocyte yield, prior fertilization failure with conventional in vitro fertilization etc. However, academic evidence for better live-birth outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection over conventional in vitro fertilization is limited. Thus, we aimed to compare the reproductive outcomes of conventional in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in patients with non-severe male factor infertility across poor and different sub-optimal ovarian response categories. The fertility rate, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate and other obstetric outcomes were mainly compared. Our results showed that independent of the number of oocytes retrieved, intracytoplasmic sperm injection significantly increased the fertilization rate, while conventional in vitro fertilization cycles showed a higher implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and live birth rate. No differences were observed in most obstetric outcomes. Our study indicates that poor ovarian response is not an indication for intracytoplasmic sperm injection in couples with non-severe male infertility.
Funder
Beijing Science and Technology Planning Project
Key Technologies Research and Development Program
National Natural Science Foundation of China
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Reference40 articles.
1. Vander Borght M, Wyns C. Fertility and infertility: Definition and epidemiology. Clin Biochem. 2018;62:2–10.
2. Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet (London, England). 1992;340(8810):17–8.
3. Wyns C, De Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, Kupka MS, Motrenko T, Smeenk J, et al. ART in Europe, 2018: Results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod Open. 2022;2022(3):hoac022.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019 assisted reproductive technology fertility clinic and national summary report. US Dept of Health and Human Services, 2021. Available from: https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/art/reports/2019/pdf/2019-Report-ART-Fertility-Clinic-National-Summary-h.pdf.
5. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor indications: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(2):239–45.