Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

ICSI for non-male factor: do we practice what we preach?

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

Abstract

Since its introduction in 1992, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has revolutionized the treatment of infertility due to severe male factor. Over the last three decades, the use of ICSI for non-male factor has increased dramatically, despite guidelines to the contrary from professional societies. Excessive utilization of ICSI is primarily due to an irrational fear of total fertilization failure, which is at odds with rational evidence to support its use.

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. Haas J, et al. The role of ICSI vs. conventional IVF for patients with advanced maternal age- a randomized controlled trial. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01990.

  2. Palermo G, et al. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet. 1992;340(8810):17–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive, M. and a.a.o. the Society for assisted reproductive technology. Electronic address, Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor indications: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(2):239–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boulet SL, Mehta A, Kissin DM, Warner L, Kawwass JF, Jamieson DJ. Trends in use of and reproductive outcomes associated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. JAMA. 2015;313(3):255–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fabbri R, Porcu E, Marsella T, Primavera MR, Seracchioli R, Ciotti PM, et al. Oocyte cryopreservation. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(Suppl 4):98–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hwang JL, Lin YH, Tsai YL. In vitro maturation and fertilization of immature oocytes: a comparative study of fertilization techniques. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2000;17(1):39–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. De Munck N, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not superior to conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). Hum Reprod. 2020;35(2):317–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. van der Westerlaken L, Helmerhorst F, Dieben S, Naaktgeboren N. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection as a treatment for unexplained total fertilization failure or low fertilization after conventional in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(3):612–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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(9274):2075–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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  Google Scholar 

  11. Drakopoulos P, Garcia-Velasco J, Bosch E, Blockeel C, de Vos M, Santos-Ribeiro S, et al. ICSI does not offer any benefit over conventional IVF across different ovarian response categories in non-male factor infertility: a European multicenter analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(10):2067–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dang VQ, et al. The effectiveness of ICSI versus conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Hum Reprod Open. 2019;2019(2):hoz006.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Levinson W, Born K, Wolfson D. Choosing Wisely Campaigns: A Work in Progress. JAMA. 2018;319(19):1975–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Festinger L. Cognitive dissonance. Sci Am. 1962;207:93–102.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bastian B, Loughnan S. Resolving the meat-paradox: a motivational account of morally troublesome behavior and its maintenance. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2017;21(3):278–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Geng T, Cheng L, Ge C, Zhang Y. The effect of ICSI in infertility couples with non-male factor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01970.

  17. Keating D, Palermo GD. The futility of searching for a single-best insemination method. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01991.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA

    Alexander M. Quaas

  2. Reproductive Partners San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA

    Alexander M. Quaas

  3. La Jolla, USA

    Alexander M. Quaas

Authors
  1. Alexander M. Quaas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Quaas, A.M. ICSI for non-male factor: do we practice what we preach?. J Assist Reprod Genet 38, 125–127 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-02016-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-02016-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation