PURPOSE: To determine if patients with a low response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation during IVF benefit from intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 350 IVF cycles in which four or fewer oocytes were retrieved. Severe male factor cases were excluded from analysis. Conventional insemination (CI) and ICSI were compared, with primary outcome measures of fertilization rate, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer, and pregnancy loss rate. RESULT(S): Fertilization rates per oocyte retrieved for CI and ICSI were comparable (51.5% vs. 51.8%). Parallel implantation rates (22% vs. 25%), clinical pregnancy rates (32.8% vs. 33.3%), and loss rates (26.7% vs. 39.5%) were also noted. No difference in cancelled cycles was reported. CONCLUSION(S): Our results demonstrate that in the presence of normal semen parameters, low egg number is not an indication to perform ICSI.
PURPOSE: To determine if patients with a low response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation during IVF benefit from intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 350 IVF cycles in which four or fewer oocytes were retrieved. Severe male factor cases were excluded from analysis. Conventional insemination (CI) and ICSI were compared, with primary outcome measures of fertilization rate, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer, and pregnancy loss rate. RESULT(S): Fertilization rates per oocyte retrieved for CI and ICSI were comparable (51.5% vs. 51.8%). Parallel implantation rates (22% vs. 25%), clinical pregnancy rates (32.8% vs. 33.3%), and loss rates (26.7% vs. 39.5%) were also noted. No difference in cancelled cycles was reported. CONCLUSION(S): Our results demonstrate that in the presence of normal semen parameters, low egg number is not an indication to perform ICSI.
Authors: S Bhattacharya; M P Hamilton; M Shaaban; Y Khalaf; M Seddler; T Ghobara; P Braude; R Kennedy; A Rutherford; G Hartshorne; A Templeton Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-06-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: S Fishel; I Aslam; F Lisi; L Rinaldi; J Timson; M Jacobson; L Gobetz; S Green; A Campbell; R Lisi Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Sheree L Boulet; Akanksha Mehta; Dmitry M Kissin; Lee Warner; Jennifer F Kawwass; Denise J Jamieson Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ioannis A Sfontouris; Efstratios M Kolibianakis; George T Lainas; Ram Navaratnarajah; Basil C Tarlatzis; Trifon G Lainas Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Mathilde Bourdon; Lucile Ferreux; Chloé Maignien; Catherine Patrat; Louis Marcellin; Khaled Pocate-Cheriet; Charles Chapron; Pietro Santulli Journal: F S Rep Date: 2020-06-30