Rui Long1, Meng Wang1, Qi Yu Yang1, Shi Qiao Hu1, Li Xia Zhu2, Lei Jin3. 1. Reproductive Medicine Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Ave, Wuhan, 430030, China. 2. Reproductive Medicine Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Ave, Wuhan, 430030, China. zhulixia027@163.com. 3. Reproductive Medicine Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Ave, Wuhan, 430030, China. leijintongjih@qq.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether artificial oocyte activation (ICSI-AOA) will increase the risk of birth defects remains controversial. Thus, we performed this study to evaluate the risk of birth defects and further compare the incidence of different birth defects types (chromosomal aberrations and non-chromosomal aberrations) in children conceived by ICSI-AOA and conventional intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in an enlarged sample size. METHOD: A comprehensive review of the literatures comparing birth defects in children conceived by ICSI-AOA and conventional ICSI by October 2020 was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Libraries, Web of Science, and Chinese databases including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine disc and Wan Fang. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Five studies were included in the final analysis. Compared with conventional ICSI, ICSI-AOA did not increase the birth defects rate (RR = 1.27, 95%CI 0.70-2.28) of children. Furthermore, in a subgroup analysis, birth defects were classified into two types (chromosomal aberrations and non-chromosomal aberrations) in four studies and no statistical difference were revealed. CONCLUSION: Our analysis indicates that ICSI-AOA represents no significant difference in the prevalence of major birth defects or types of birth defects (chromosomal aberrations and non-chromosomal aberrations) comparing with conventional ICSI. This conclusion may provide clinicians evidence-based support in patient counseling and instruction of the application and safety concern about ICSI-AOA.
BACKGROUND: Whether artificial oocyte activation (ICSI-AOA) will increase the risk of birth defects remains controversial. Thus, we performed this study to evaluate the risk of birth defects and further compare the incidence of different birth defects types (chromosomal aberrations and non-chromosomal aberrations) in children conceived by ICSI-AOA and conventional intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in an enlarged sample size. METHOD: A comprehensive review of the literatures comparing birth defects in children conceived by ICSI-AOA and conventional ICSI by October 2020 was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Libraries, Web of Science, and Chinese databases including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine disc and Wan Fang. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Five studies were included in the final analysis. Compared with conventional ICSI, ICSI-AOA did not increase the birth defects rate (RR = 1.27, 95%CI 0.70-2.28) of children. Furthermore, in a subgroup analysis, birth defects were classified into two types (chromosomal aberrations and non-chromosomal aberrations) in four studies and no statistical difference were revealed. CONCLUSION: Our analysis indicates that ICSI-AOA represents no significant difference in the prevalence of major birth defects or types of birth defects (chromosomal aberrations and non-chromosomal aberrations) comparing with conventional ICSI. This conclusion may provide clinicians evidence-based support in patient counseling and instruction of the application and safety concern about ICSI-AOA.
Authors: Thomas Ebner; Markus Montag; M Montag; K Van der Ven; H Van der Ven; T Ebner; O Shebl; P Oppelt; J Hirchenhain; J Krüssel; B Maxrath; C Gnoth; K Friol; J Tigges; E Wünsch; J Luckhaus; A Beerkotte; D Weiss; K Grunwald; D Struller; C Etien Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 3.828