4.6 Review

Karyotyping, congenital anomalies and follow-up of children after intracytoplasmic sperm injection with non-ejaculated sperm: a systematic review

期刊

HUMAN REPRODUCTION UPDATE
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 12-19

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmp030

关键词

ICSI; non-ejaculated sperm; karyotyping; congenital anomalies; follow-up

资金

  1. Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For men with azoospermia, it is possible to father their own progeny by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) with epididymal or testicular sperm. Some studies show that children born after assisted reproductive technology (ART) are at increased risk of birth defects, other studies suggest that there is no extra concern about ICSI children conceived with epididymal or testicular sperm. Studies about the karyotypes of fetuses, congenital anomalies and the follow-up of the children born after ICSI with non-ejaculated sperm were identified by means of a systematic literature search. Eight relevant studies were identified; two studies reported karyotype, five reported malformations and one reported follow-up of children after ICSI. In total, there were 55 out of 1973 (2.8%) abnormal karyotypes in the ICSI with ejaculated sperm group, 0 out of 31 in the ICSI with epididymal sperm group and 5 out of 191 (2.6%) in the ICSI with testicular sperm group. Major malformations were found in 543 out of 12 377 (4.4%) in the ICSI with ejaculated sperm group, 17 out of 533 (3.2%) in the ICSI with epididymal sperm group and 31 out of 670 (4.6%) in the ICSI with testicular sperm group. Although there were no statistical differences, the study groups were small and heterogenic, with a number of potential biases. We therefore recommend a standardized methodology of follow-up studies after ART, with well-defined groups of ICSI with ejaculated sperm, ICSI with epididymal sperm and ICSI with testicular sperm, and a control group of naturally conceived children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据