Is Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Overused?
B. Hodes-Wertz, Christine Mullin, Alexis Adler, Nicole Noyes, J. Grifo, Alan S. Berkeley
Abstract
B. Hodes-Wertz, Christine Mullin, Alexis Adler, Nicole Noyes, J. Grifo, Alan S. Berkeley
Abstract
PURPOSE: We determined whether the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in couples who previously underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles elsewhere could be decreased without compromising the pregnancy rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At our university in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer center we retrospectively analyzed the records of 149 fresh, in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles in patients who underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection elsewhere and subsequent fertilization by insemination only (all insemination group) or half insemination and half intracytoplasmic sperm injection at our center. We compared fertilization, implantation, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates. RESULTS: The fertilization rate was 74% and 73% for the all insemination and the half intracytoplasmic sperm injection groups, respectively. In the latter group 69% of inseminated and 78% of intracytoplasmic sperm injected oocytes were fertilized. No cycle showed complete fertilization failure. No statistically significant difference in the live birth rate was found between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: More stringent criteria for intracytoplasmic sperm injection do not compromise the clinical outcome and reasonable fertilization can be achieved whether or not intracytoplasmic sperm injection is performed. Thus, although intracytoplasmic sperm injection is one of the greatest advances in our field, it is overused and should only be done for clinically proven indications.
OpenAlex reports 10 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
PURPOSE: We determined whether the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in couples who previously underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles elsewhere could be decreased without compromising the pregnancy rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At our university in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer center we retrospectively analyzed the records of 149 fresh, in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles in patients who underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection elsewhere and subsequent fertilization by insemination only (all insemination group) or half insemination and half intracytoplasmic sperm injection at our center. We compared fertilization, implantation, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates. RESULTS: The fertilization rate was 74% and 73% for the all insemination and the half intracytoplasmic sperm injection groups, respectively. In the latter group 69% of inseminated and 78% of intracytoplasmic sperm injected oocytes were fertilized. No cycle showed complete fertilization failure. No statistically significant difference in the live birth rate was found between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: More stringent criteria for intracytoplasmic sperm injection do not compromise the clinical outcome and reasonable fertilization can be achieved whether or not intracytoplasmic sperm injection is performed. Thus, although intracytoplasmic sperm injection is one of the greatest advances in our field, it is overused and should only be done for clinically proven indications.
Key concepts: Intracytoplasmic sperm injection, Human fertilization, Insemination, Sperm, In vitro fertilisation, Andrology, Embryo transfer, Medicine