Are we justified doing routine intracytoplasmic sperm injection in nonmale factor infertility? A retrospective study comparing reproductive outcomes between in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in nonmale factor infertility

Introduction: Intracytoplasmic sperm insemination (ICSI) came into use in 1992 to improve fertilization in couples with male factor infertility undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or in couples with fertilization failure in a prior IVF cycle. Our aim was to find out if routine ICSI has any addit...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of human reproductive sciences 2019-07, Vol.12 (3), p.210-215
Main Authors: Biliangady, Reeta, Kinila, Poornima, Pandit, Rubina, Tudu, Nutan, Sundhararaj, Uma, Gopal, Indu, Swamy, Ambika
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Birth defects
Care and treatment
Comparative analysis
Embryos
Female infertility
Fertility
Fertilization in vitro
Ganirelix
Human artificial insemination
Human fertilization in vitro
ICSI
In vitro fertilization
Infertility
Injection
IVF
Laboratories
nonmale factor infertility
Original
Patient outcomes
Pregnancy
Reproductive technologies
Reproductive technology
Sperm
Statistical analysis
Technology
Ultrasonic imaging
Working hours
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction: Intracytoplasmic sperm insemination (ICSI) came into use in 1992 to improve fertilization in couples with male factor infertility undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or in couples with fertilization failure in a prior IVF cycle. Our aim was to find out if routine ICSI has any additional benefit over conventional IVF in non male factor cases in modern Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART). Methods: This is a retrospective single centre study undertaken at a private IVF center. A total of 350 patients with normal male factor were included in the study of which 186 underwent conventional IVF and 134 were subjected to ICSI. They were then compared for various reproductive parameters with Live Birth Rate (LBR) being the primary outcome. P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Fertilization rates (89.99% vs 85.1%), Blastocyst formation rates (62.86% vs 50.61%) and clinical pregnancy rates (37.85% vs 32.35%) were found to be higher in the IVF group compared to the ICSI group though not statistically significant. The live birth rates in the IVF group was also higher than the ICSI group (32.71% vs 24.26%). Conclusion: IVF edged over ICSI in all aspects resulting in better clinical outcome with higher take home babies in non-male factor infertility. Our results show that routine ICSI should not be used as a blanket therapy for all cases in ART.
ISSN:0974-1208
1998-4766
DOI:10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_8_19