Mete Isikoglu1, Ayse Kendirci Ceviren2, Tugba Cetin2, Aysenur Avci2, Batu Aydinuraz2, Ozlem Karabay Akgul3, Mehmet Karaca4. 1. GELECEK The Center For Human Reproduction, Caglayan Mh Bulent Ecevit Bulvari No: 167, Lara, Antalya, Turkey. misikoglu@hotmail.com. 2. GELECEK The Center For Human Reproduction, Caglayan Mh Bulent Ecevit Bulvari No: 167, Lara, Antalya, Turkey. 3. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, SBU Istanbul Bagcilar Training and Reseach Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey. 4. Medical Park Hospital Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Antalya, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to analyse our clinical results for a particular subgroup of patients with poor ovarian response (POR) to clarify if lower number of oocytes is a drawback for proceeding to C-IVF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, patient files of all couples (#1733) who underwent oocyte retrieval between January 2017 and December 2019 were reviewed and 191 cases diagnosed with non-male factor infertility in which ≤ 3 cumulus-oocyte complexes available for fertilisation were analysed. Exclusion criteria were: woman age > 42, patients with a history of previous ART trial, prenatal genetic testing cycles and couples undergoing total cryopreservation for any indication. Three groups were constructed depending on the method of fertilisation and on semen quality as follows: IVF non-male factor (Group 1, n = 77); ICSI non-male factor (Group 2, n = 65); ICSI male factor-ICSI/MF n = 49 according to WHO reference values. Main outcome parameters were: fertilisation rate, implantation rate and live birth rate. RESULTS: Fertilisation rate per collected COC was significantly higher in group 1 compared to the other two groups (85.68%, 72.58%, 73.33% respectively, p = 0.004). FR per inseminated oocyte also tended to be higher in group 1 but not reaching a statistically significant level. Both techniques yielded similar implantation rates (20.42%, 28.49%, 23.33% respectively, p = 0.407) and live birth rates (26.8%, 30.6%, 31.1%, respectively, p = 0.643). CONCLUSION: In the presence of normal semen parameters, low egg number is not an indication to perform ICSI. The choice of fertilisation method should be based primarily on semen quality, in combination with the patient's previous history regardless of the ovarian reserve.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to analyse our clinical results for a particular subgroup of patients with poor ovarian response (POR) to clarify if lower number of oocytes is a drawback for proceeding to C-IVF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, patient files of all couples (#1733) who underwent oocyte retrieval between January 2017 and December 2019 were reviewed and 191 cases diagnosed with non-male factor infertility in which ≤ 3 cumulus-oocyte complexes available for fertilisation were analysed. Exclusion criteria were: woman age > 42, patients with a history of previous ART trial, prenatal genetic testing cycles and couples undergoing total cryopreservation for any indication. Three groups were constructed depending on the method of fertilisation and on semen quality as follows: IVF non-male factor (Group 1, n = 77); ICSI non-male factor (Group 2, n = 65); ICSI male factor-ICSI/MF n = 49 according to WHO reference values. Main outcome parameters were: fertilisation rate, implantation rate and live birth rate. RESULTS: Fertilisation rate per collected COC was significantly higher in group 1 compared to the other two groups (85.68%, 72.58%, 73.33% respectively, p = 0.004). FR per inseminated oocyte also tended to be higher in group 1 but not reaching a statistically significant level. Both techniques yielded similar implantation rates (20.42%, 28.49%, 23.33% respectively, p = 0.407) and live birth rates (26.8%, 30.6%, 31.1%, respectively, p = 0.643). CONCLUSION: In the presence of normal semen parameters, low egg number is not an indication to perform ICSI. The choice of fertilisation method should be based primarily on semen quality, in combination with the patient's previous history regardless of the ovarian reserve.
Authors: Sven Sandin; Karl-Gösta Nygren; Anastasia Iliadou; Christina M Hultman; Abraham Reichenberg Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: D M Kissin; Y Zhang; S L Boulet; C Fountain; P Bearman; L Schieve; M Yeargin-Allsopp; D J Jamieson Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2014-12-17 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: S Dyer; G M Chambers; J de Mouzon; K G Nygren; F Zegers-Hochschild; R Mansour; O Ishihara; M Banker; G D Adamson Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: M J Davies; A R Rumbold; J L Marino; K Willson; L C Giles; M J Whitrow; W Scheil; L J Moran; J G Thompson; M Lane; V M Moore Journal: BJOG Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 6.531