4.3 Article

Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI) after repeated IVF or ICSI failures: a prospective comparative study

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.11.011

Keywords

Assisted reproductive technologies; Blastocyst culture; Embryo quality; Fertilization; Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Sperm morphology plays a significant role in assisted reproductive technologies and is associated with high implantation rates. The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcome of intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI) after repeated failures of conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) techniques. Study design: In a prospective study in which couples acted as their own controls, 75 infertile couples were offered IMSI after at least two previous IVF or ICSI failures. The main outcome measures were embryo quality and number of blastocysts obtained. Results: The percentage of top quality embryos obtained at day 2 was increased in IMSI compared to IVF/ICSI cycles (89.8% versus 79.8%; p = 0.009). Extended embryo culture was possible in 41.3% of IMSI cycles versus 26.7% of IVF/ICSI cycles (p = 0.04), and the mean number of blastocysts obtained was higher in IMSI cycles (1.5 +/- 1.9) than in IVF/ICSI cycles (1.0 +/- 1.2) (p = 0.03). Moreover, IMSI resulted in clinical pregnancy and birth rates of respectively 29.3% and 18.6%. Conclusion: After two or three IVF/ICSI failures, IMSI seems to give better embryo quality and more blastocysts, which allow more embryo transfers at the blastocyst stage. This study supports the use of sperm ultramorphology examination as an independent test to be proposed after repeated IVF or ICSI failures. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available