Skip to main content

Should ICSI be recommended routinely in patients with four or fewer oocytes retrieved?

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics volume 28, pages 911–915 (2011)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

To determine if patients with a low response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation during IVF benefit from intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)

Methods

Retrospective analysis of 350 IVF cycles in which four or fewer oocytes were retrieved. Severe male factor cases were excluded from analysis. Conventional insemination (CI) and ICSI were compared, with primary outcome measures of fertilization rate, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer, and pregnancy loss rate.

Result(s)

Fertilization rates per oocyte retrieved for CI and ICSI were comparable (51.5% vs. 51.8%). Parallel implantation rates (22% vs. 25%), clinical pregnancy rates (32.8% vs. 33.3%), and loss rates (26.7% vs. 39.5%) were also noted. No difference in cancelled cycles was reported.

Conclusion(s)

Our results demonstrate that in the presence of normal semen parameters, low egg number is not an indication to perform ICSI.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Palermo GD, Cohen J, Alikani M, Adler A, Rosenwaks Z. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a novel treatment for all forms of male factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 1995;63:1231–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sherins RJ, Thorsell LP, Dorfmann A, Dennison-Lagos L, Calvo LP, Krysa L, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection facilitates fertilization even in the most severe forms of male infertility: pregnancy outcome correlates with maternal age and number of eggs available. Fertil Steril. 1995;64:369–75.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Tarlatzis BC, Bili H. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Survey of world results. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000;900:336–44.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fishel S, Aslam I, Lisi F, Rinaldi L, Timson J, Jacobson M, et al. Should ICSI be the treatment of choice for all cases of in-vitro conception? Hum Reprod. 2000;15(6):1278–83.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Devroey P, Liu J, Nagy Z, Tournaye H, Silber SJ, Van Steirteghem AC. Normal fertilization of human oocytes after testicular sperm extraction and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 1994;62(3):639–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nagy ZP, Liu J, Joris H, Verheyen G, Tournaye H, Camus M, et al. The result of intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not related to any of the three basic sperm parameters. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(5):1123–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Silber SJ, Van Steirteghem AC, Liu J, Nagy Z, Tournaye H, Devroey P. High fertilization and pregnancy rate after intracytoplasmic sperm injection with spermatozoa obtained from testicle biopsy. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(1):148–52.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Taylor TH, Wright G, Jones-Colon S, Mitchell-Leef D, Kort HI, Nagy ZP. Comparison of ICSI and conventional IVF in patients with increased oocyte immaturity. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(1):46–52.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ubaldi F, Liu J, Nagy Z, Tournaye H, Camus M, Van Steirteghem A, et al. Indications for and results of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Int J Androl. 1995;18 Suppl 2:88–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nagy ZP, Verheyen G, Tournaye H, Van Steirteghem AC. Special applications of intracytoplasmic sperm injection: the influence of sperm count, motility, morphology, source and sperm antibody on the outcome of ICSI. Hum Reprod. 1998;13 Suppl 1:143–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ruiz A, Remohí J, Minguez Y, Guanes PP, Simón C, Pellicer A. The role of in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in couples with unexplained infertility after failed intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 1997;68(1):171–3.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Jenkins JM, Davies DW, Devonport H, Anthony FW, Gadd SC, Watson RH, et al. Comparison of ‘poor’ responders with ‘good’ responders using a standard buserelin/human menopausal gonadotrophin regime for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1991;6(7):918–21.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dor J, Seidman DS, Ben-Shlomo I, Levran D, Karasik A, Mashiach S. The prognostic importance of the number of oocytes retrieved and estradiol levels in poor and normal responders in in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1992;9(3):228–32.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Barlow P, Englert Y, Puissant F, Lejeune B, Delvigne A, Van Rysselberge M, et al. Fertilization failure in IVF: why and what next? Hum Reprod. 1990;5(4):451–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Khamsi F, Yavas Y, Roberge S, Wong JC, Lacanna IC, Endman M. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection increased fertilization and good-quality embryo formation in patients with non-male factor indications for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2001;72(2):342–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Orief Y, Dafopoulos K, Al-Hassani S. Should ICSI be used in non-male factor infertility? Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;9(3):348–56.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ludwig M, Strik D, Al-Hasani S, Diedrich K. No transfer in a planned ICSI cycle: we cannot overcome some basic rules of human reproduction. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1999;87(1):3–11.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Staessen C, Camus M, Clasen K, De Vos A, Van Steirteghem A. Conventional in-vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in sibling oocytes from couples with tubal infertility and normozoospermic men. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(10):2474–9.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jenkins JM, Davies DW, Devonport H, Anthony FW, Gadd SC, Watson RH, et al. Comparison of ‘poor’ responders with ‘good’ responders using a standard buserelin/human menopausal gonadotrophin regime for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1991;6(7):918–21.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ludwig M, Al-Hasani S, Küpker W, Bauer O, Diedrich K. A new indication for an intracytoplasmic sperm injection procedure outside the cases of severe male factor infertility. Eur J Ob Gyn. 1997;75:207–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Melie NA, Adeniyi OA, Igbineweka OM, Ajayi RJ. Predictive value of the number of oocytes retrieved at ultrasound-directed follicular aspiration with regard to fertilization rates and pregnancy outcome in intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment cycles. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(6):1376–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Moreno C, Ruiz A, Simon C, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection as a routine indication in low responder patients. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:2126–9.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ou YC, Lan KC, Huang FJ, Kung FT, Lan TH, Chang SY. Comparison of in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in extremely low oocyte retrieval cycles. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(1):96–100.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Foong SG, Fleetham JA, O’Keane JA, Scott SG, Tough SC, Greene CA. A prospective randomized trial of conventional in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in unexplained fertility. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2006;23(3):137–40.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bhattacharya S, Hamilton MPR, Shaaban M, Khalaf Y, Seddler M, Ghobara T, et al. Conventional in vitro fertilisation versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection for the treatment of non-male factor infertility: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2001;357:2075–9.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Van Rumste M, Evers JLH, Farquhar C. Intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional techniques for oocyte insemination during in vitro fertilisation in patients with non-male subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(2) Art. No.: CD001301.

  27. Van Rumste MME, Evers JLH, Farquhar CM. ICSI versus conventional techniques for oocyte insemination during IVF in patients with non-male factor subfertility: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(2):223–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim HH, Bundorf MK, Behr B, McCallum SW. Use and outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection for non-male factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(3):622–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Verheyen G, Tournaye H, Staessen C, De Vos A, Vandervorst M, Van Steirteghem A. Controlled comparison of conventional in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in patients with asthenozoospermia. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(9):2313–9.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Gozlan I, Dor A, Farber B, Meirow D, Feinstein S, Levron J. Comparing intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization in patients with single oocyte retrieval. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(3):515–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Plachot M, Belaisch-Allart J, Mayenga JM, Chouraqui A, Tesquier L, Serkine AM. Outcome of conventional IVF and ICSI on sibling oocytes in mild male factor infertility. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(2):362–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Balakier H, Sojecki A, Motamedi G, Librach C. Time-dependent capability of human oocytes for activation and pronuclear formation during metaphase II arrest. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(4):982–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hyun CS, Cha JH, Son WY, Yoon SH, Kim KA, Lim JH. Optimal ICSI timing after the first polar body extrusion in in vitro matured human oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(7):1991–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

The authors report no financial conflicts of interest or financial support for this research.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Reproductive Medicine Associates of New York, New York, NY, USA

    Martha Luna, Catherine Bigelow, Marlena Duke, Jane Ruman, Benjamin Sandler, Lawrence Grunfeld & Alan B. Copperman

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Science – Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Martha Luna, Catherine Bigelow, Marlena Duke, Jane Ruman, Benjamin Sandler, Lawrence Grunfeld & Alan B. Copperman

  3. 635 Madison Ave, 10th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, USA

    Alan B. Copperman

Authors
  1. Martha Luna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine Bigelow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marlena Duke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jane Ruman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Benjamin Sandler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lawrence Grunfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alan B. Copperman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan B. Copperman.

Additional information

Capsule In the presence of normal semen parameters, low response to ovarian hyperstimulation is not an indication to perform ICSI over conventional insemination.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Luna, M., Bigelow, C., Duke, M. et al. Should ICSI be recommended routinely in patients with four or fewer oocytes retrieved?. J Assist Reprod Genet 28, 911–915 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-011-9614-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-011-9614-9

Keywords

  • IVF
  • ICSI
  • Poor response
  • Oocyte retrieval