An Open Prospective Study on Whether Intracytoplasmic Morphologically Selected Sperm Injection (IMSI) Offers a Better Outcome Than Conventional Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI).
assisted reproduction (art)
infertility
intracytoplasmatic morphologically selected sperm injection (imsi)
intracytoplasmic sperm injection (icsi)
reproductive medicine
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Nov 2021
Historique:
accepted:
01
11
2021
entrez:
5
11
2021
pubmed:
6
11
2021
medline:
6
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Objective To differentiate the in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes between the two procedures, intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in terms of relation to chemical pregnancy percentage, clinical pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage, and fertilization rates, respectively. Patients and methods This Open Prospective clinical trial was conducted during the period between Jan 2016 and Dec 2017 at one IVF unit. A total of 446 ICSI cycles and 79 IMSI cycles were conducted. Females were divided into four subgroups according to age. Results The study involved 525 couples (446 first trial ICSI cycles) and (79 first trial IMSI cycles). ICSI was statistically better than the IMSI in relation to the chemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy (CPR), live birth (LBR), and fertilization rates, respectively (p < 0.05). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the ICSI and IMSI in relation to the miscarriage rate. There were statistically significant differences favoring ICSI in all subgroups except 35-37, in relation to chemical pregnancy; and in the 38-40 and >40 subgroups in relation to CPR. There were no statistically significant differences in these subgroups regarding the live birth, miscarriage, or fertilization rates. Conclusions This study showed that IMSI is not superior to conventional ICSI at the first attempt. Based on the findings in this study, we would not advise couples to choose IMSI at their first treatment attempt.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34737916
doi: 10.7759/cureus.19181
pmc: PMC8560014
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e19181Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021, Moubasher et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2010 Dec;78(12):652-9
pubmed: 21961371
Hum Reprod. 2006 Jul;21(7):1787-90
pubmed: 16497697
CMAJ. 2006 Aug 29;175(5):495-500
pubmed: 16940270
Hum Reprod. 1997 Dec;12(12):2676-81
pubmed: 9455834
Hum Reprod. 2013 Mar;28(3):617-26
pubmed: 23293218
Fertil Steril. 2013 Apr;99(5):1290-3
pubmed: 23357455
Reprod Biomed Online. 2008 Jun;16(6):835-41
pubmed: 18549694
Hum Reprod. 1994 Nov;9(11):2069-75
pubmed: 7868676
Asian J Androl. 2013 Sep;15(5):608-15
pubmed: 23832017
Urology. 2011 Oct;78(4):786-91
pubmed: 21820702
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Mar;33(3):349-355
pubmed: 26754750
Hum Reprod. 2012 Apr;27(4):954-66
pubmed: 22343707
Int J Androl. 2012 Feb;35(1):46-51
pubmed: 21535011
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015 Aug 27;13:97
pubmed: 26307050
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011 Jul 22;9:99
pubmed: 21781299
Reprod Health. 2013 Mar 22;10:16
pubmed: 23521828
Reprod Biomed Online. 2011 May;22(5):472-6
pubmed: 21324747
J Androl. 2002 Jan-Feb;23(1):1-8
pubmed: 11780915
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011 Mar;28(3):253-62
pubmed: 21072684
Reprod Biomed Online. 2008 Jul;17(1):42-5
pubmed: 18616888
Reprod Biomed Online. 2010 Oct;21(4):450-5
pubmed: 20800549
Hum Reprod Update. 1998 Jan-Feb;4(1):43-56
pubmed: 9622412
Andrology. 2013 Sep;1(5):692-7
pubmed: 23788532
Hum Reprod. 1993 Jan;8(1):65-70
pubmed: 8458929
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015 Mar;32(3):445-50
pubmed: 25595539
Fertil Steril. 2003 Dec;80(6):1413-9
pubmed: 14667877
Hum Reprod. 1995 Sep;10(9):2427-31
pubmed: 8530679
Reprod Biomed Online. 2006 Jan;12(1):19-25
pubmed: 16454928