Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Live birth rates using conventional in vitro fertilization compared to intracytoplasmic sperm injection in Bologna poor responders with a single oocyte retrieved

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare reproductive outcomes following conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in poor responders fulfilling the Bologna criteria, with a single oocyte retrieved.

Methods

The present retrospective study included 243 Bologna poor responders with a single oocyte retrieved, who were categorized into three groups, depending on the fertilization method and semen quality (IVF non-male factor-IVF/NMF n = 101; ICSI non-male factor ICSI/NMF n = 50; ICSI male factor-ICSI/MF n = 92).

Results

In IVF/NMF, ICSI/NMF and ICSI/MF similar fertilization rates [65.3, 66, 58.7 %, respectively], proportions of embryo formation [63.4, 60, 53.3 %, respectively], proportions of good quality embryos [54.7, 56.7, 57.1 %, respectively], implantation rates [8.9, 10, 8.2 % respectively] and live birth rates per oocyte retrieval [5.0, 4.0, 3.3 %, respectively] were observed. Degeneration rate of oocytes due to mechanical damage was significantly higher after ICSI in the ICSI/NMF and ICSI/MF groups (8 and 6.5 %, respectively) compared to IVF/NMF (0 %) (p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Conventional IVF and ICSI are associated with similar reproductive outcomes in poor responder patients with a single oocyte retrieved. Therefore, the choice of fertilization method should be based primarily on semen quality, in combination with the patient’s previous history. A randomized controlled trial should be performed to confirm this study’s findings that conventional IVF and ICSI have similar reproductive outcomes in poor responders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet. 1992;340(8810):17–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Van Steirteghem AC, Nagy Z, Joris H, Liu J, Staessen C, Smitz J, et al. High fertilization and implantation rates after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(7):1061–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Oehninger S, Gosden RG. Should ICSI be the treatment of choice for all cases of in-vitro conception? No, not in light of the scientific data. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(9):2237–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nyboe Andersen A, Carlsen E, Loft A. Trends in the use of intracytoplasmatic sperm injection marked variability between countries. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14(6):593–604.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sullivan EA, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, Ishihara O, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) world report: assisted reproductive technology 2004. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(5):1375–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mansour R, Ishihara O, Adamson GD, Dyer S, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG, et al. International committee for monitoring assisted reproductive technologies world report: Assisted Reproductive Technology 2006. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(7):1536–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kupka MS, Ferraretti AP, de Mouzon J, Erb K, D’Hooghe T, Castilla JA, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(10):2099–113.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hodes-Wertz B, Mullin CM, Adler A, Noyes N, Grifo JA, Berkeley AS. Is intracytoplasmic sperm injection overused? J Urol. 2012;187(2):602–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, de Mouzon J, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Korsak V, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2008: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(9):2571–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Khamsi F, Yavas Y, Roberge S, Lacanna IC, Wong JC, Endman M. The status of controlled prospective clinical trials for efficacy of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in in vitro fertilization for non-male factor infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2000;17(9):504–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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;75(2):342–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Van der Westerlaken L, Naaktgeboren N, Verburg H, Dieben S, Helmerhorst F. Conventional in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in patients with borderline semen: a randomized study using sibling oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(2):395–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Check JH, Bollendorf A, Summers-Chase D, Horwath D, Hourani W. Conventional oocyte insemination may result in a better pregnancy outcome than intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for unexplained infertility. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2009;36(3):150–1.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hershlag A, Paine T, Kvapil G, Feng H, Napolitano B. In vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection split: an insemination method to prevent fertilization failure. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(2):229–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson LNC, Sasson IE, Sammel MD, Dokras A. Does intracytoplasmic sperm injection improve the fertilization rate and decrease the total fertilization failure rate in couples with well-defined unexplained infertility? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):704–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI, Amin YM, Kamal A. Prospective controlled randomized study of in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the treatment of tubal factor infertility with normal semen parameters. Fertil Steril. 1996;66(5):753–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 semen. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(10):2474–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hwang JL, Seow KM, Lin YH, Hsieh BC, Huang LW, Chen HJ, et al. IVF versus ICSI in sibling oocytes from patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(5):1261–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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(8):2126–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vicdan K, Isik AZ. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not associated with poor outcome in couples with normal semen parameters and previous idiopathic fertilization failure in conventional in vitro fertilization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1999;87(1):87–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Omland A, Bjercke S, Ertzeid G, Fedorcsak P, Oldereid N, Storeng R, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in unexplained and stage I endometriosis-associated infertility after fertilization failure with in vitro fertilization (IVF). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2006;23(2):351–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bhattacharya S, Hamilton MP, 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(9274):2075–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim JY, Kim JH, Jee BC, Lee JR, Suh CS, Kim SH. Can intracytoplasmic sperm injection prevent total fertilization failure and enhance embryo quality in patients with non-male factor infertility? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;178:188–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive M, Society for Assisted Reproductive T. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(6):1395–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Borini A, Gambardella A, Bonu MA, Dal Prato L, Sciajno R, Bianchi L, et al. Comparison of IVF and ICSI when only few oocytes are available for insemination. Reprod BioMed Online. 2009;19(2):270–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Luna M, Bigelow C, Duke M, Ruman J, Sandler B, Grunfeld L, et al. Should ICSI be recommended routinely in patients with four or fewer oocytes retrieved? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(10):911–5. doi:10.1007/s10815-011-9614-9. LA - English.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BCJM, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1616–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. World Health Organization. Laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  36. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999. 128 p.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lainas TG, Sfontouris IA, Papanikolaou EG, Zorzovilis JZ, Petsas GK, Lainas GT, et al. Flexible GnRH antagonist versus flare-up GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders treated by IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(6):1355–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kolibianakis E, Zikopoulos K, Camus M, Tournaye H, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. Modified natural cycle for IVF does not offer a realistic chance of parenthood in poor responders with high day 3 FSH levels, as a last resort prior to oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(11):2545–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kedem A, Tsur A, Haas J, Yerushalmi GM, Hourvitz A, Machtinger R, et al. Is the modified natural in vitro fertilization cycle justified in patients with “genuine” poor response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation? Fertil Steril. 2014;101(6):1624–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Busnelli A, Papaleo E, Del Prato D, La Vecchia I, Iachini E, Paffoni A, et al. A retrospective evaluation of prognosis and cost-effectiveness of IVF in poor responders according to the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(2):315–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Polyzos NP, Blockeel C, Verpoest W, De Vos M, Stoop D, Vloeberghs V, et al. Live birth rates following natural cycle IVF in women with poor ovarian response according to the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(12):3481–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Polyzos NP, Nwoye M, Corona R, Blockeel C, Stoop D, Haentjens P, et al. Live birth rates in Bologna poor responders treated with ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;28(4):469–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Geraedts J, Montag M, Magli MC, Repping S, Handyside A, Staessen C, et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(11):3173–80.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gutierrez-Mateo C, Colls P, Sanchez-Garcia J, Escudero T, Prates R, Ketterson K, et al. Validation of microarray comparative genomic hybridization for comprehensive chromosome analysis of embryos. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(3):953–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Horcajadas JA, Pellicer A, Simon C. Wide genomic analysis of human endometrial receptivity: new times, new opportunities. Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13(1):77–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Yoeli R, Orvieto R, Ashkenazi J, Shelef M, Ben-Rafael Z, Bar-Hava I. Comparison of embryo quality between intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization in sibling oocytes. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2008;25(1):23–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A. A review of ten years experience of ICSI. Hum Reprod Update. 2004;10(1):19–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bonduelle M, Liebaers I, Deketelaere V, Derde M-P, Camus M, Devroey P, et al. Neonatal data on a cohort of 2889 infants born after ICSI (1991-1999) and of 2995 infants born after IVF (1983–1999). Hum Reprod. 2002;17(3):671–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Bonduelle M, Ponjaert I, Steirteghem AV, Derde MP, Devroey P, Liebaers I. Developmental outcome at 2 years of age for children born after ICSI compared with children born after IVF. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(2):342–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Davies MJ, Moore VM, Willson KJ, Van Essen P, Priest K, Scott H, et al. Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(19):1803–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Dr George Petsas and Dr Ioannis Zorzovilis for clinical work, Mrs K. Anagnostara for embryology work, and Mrs G. Stavropoulou for patient coordination.

Funding/competing interests

The study was self-funded. No external funding was obtained. The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

IAS conceived the study, performed acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data, writing and revision of the manuscript, and embryology work. EMK and GTL participated in the analysis and interpretation of data, writing and revision of the manuscript. BCT and RN participated in the interpretation of data and revision of the manuscript. TGL had the general supervision of the study, participated in study design, analysis and interpretation of data, writing and revision of the manuscript, and performed clinical work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eugonia Assisted Reproduction Unit, 7 Ventiri Street, 11528, Athens, Greece

    Ioannis A. Sfontouris, George T. Lainas & Trifon G. Lainas

  2. Unit for Human Reproduction, 1st Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Papageorgiou General Hospital, Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Efstratios M. Kolibianakis & Basil C. Tarlatzis

  3. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Barts and the London NHS Trust, London, UK

    Ram Navaratnarajah

Authors
  1. Ioannis A. Sfontouris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Efstratios M. Kolibianakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. George T. Lainas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ram Navaratnarajah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Basil C. Tarlatzis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Trifon G. Lainas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ioannis A. Sfontouris.

Additional information

Capsule Conventional IVF and ICSI are associated with similar single oocyte retrieved and normal semen parameters.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sfontouris, I.A., Kolibianakis, E.M., Lainas, G.T. et al. Live birth rates using conventional in vitro fertilization compared to intracytoplasmic sperm injection in Bologna poor responders with a single oocyte retrieved. J Assist Reprod Genet 32, 691–697 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0459-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0459-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation