Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Obstetrical outcomes of ART pregnancies in patients with male factor infertility

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

Abstract

Purpose

Pregnancies conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are associated with an increased incidence of obstetrical and neonatal complications. With the growing rate of male factor infertility, which is unique by not involving the maternal milieu, we aimed to assess whether obstetrical outcomes differed between IVF/ICSI pregnancies due to male factor infertility and those not due to male factor infertility.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of women receiving IVF/ICSI treatments at a single hospital over a five-year period was involved in the study. Inclusion criteria were women with a viable pregnancy that delivered at the same hospital. Pregnancies were divided into male factor only related and non-male factor–related infertility. The groups were compared for several maternal and neonatal complications.

Results

In total, 225 patients met the study criteria, with 94 and 131 pregnancies belonging to the male factor and non-male factor groups, respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable, except for younger maternal age and higher incidence of twin pregnancies in the male factor group. A sub-analysis for singleton pregnancies revealed a less likelihood of cesarean delivery, preterm birth, and male gender offspring in the male factor group (p < 0.05). These differences were not observed in the sub-analysis for twin pregnancies. Other outcome measures were similar in both groups, both for singleton and twin pregnancies.

Conclusion

Singleton IVF pregnancies due to male factor infertility are associated with a reduced incidence of some adverse outcomes, likely due to lack of underlying maternal medical conditions or laboratory conditions related to ICSI. Our findings require validation by further studies on larger samples.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet. 1978;2(8085):366.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. De Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, Kupka MS, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Motrenko T, et al. ART in Europe, 2014: results generated from European registries by ESHRE: the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod. 2018;33(9):1586–601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. "More than 8 million babies born from IVF since the world's first in 1978: European IVF pregnancy rates now steady at around 36 percent, according to ESHRE monitoring." ScienceDaily. 2018.

  4. Allen VM, Wilson RD, Cheung A, Genetics C, Reproductive E, Infertility C. Pregnancy outcomes after assisted reproductive technology. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2006;28(3):220–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wilson CL, Fisher JR, Hammarberg K, Amor DJ, Halliday JL. Looking downstream: a review of the literature on physical and psychosocial health outcomes in adolescents and young adults who were conceived by ART. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(5):1209–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Farhi A, Reichman B, Boyko V, Hourvitz A, Ron-El R, Lerner-Geva L. Maternal and neonatal health outcomes following assisted reproduction. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;26(5):454–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jackson S, Hong C, Wang ET, Alexander C, Gregory KD, Pisarska MD. Pregnancy outcomes in very advanced maternal age pregnancies: the impact of assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(1):76–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Marino JL, Moore VM, Willson KJ, Rumbold A, Whitrow MJ, Giles LC, et al. Perinatal outcomes by mode of assisted conception and sub-fertility in an Australian data linkage cohort. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e80398.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Malchau SS, Loft A, Henningsen AK, Nyboe Andersen A, Pinborg A. Perinatal outcomes in 6338 singletons born after intrauterine insemination in Denmark, 2007 to 2012: the influence of ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(4):1110–6 e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Qin J, Liu X, Sheng X, Wang H, Gao S. Assisted reproductive technology and the risk of pregnancy-related complications and adverse pregnancy outcomes in singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(1):73–85 e1-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18(5):485–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Qin J, Wang H, Sheng X, Liang D, Tan H, Xia J. Pregnancy-related complications and adverse pregnancy outcomes in multiple pregnancies resulting from assisted reproductive technology: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(6):1492–508 e1-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McDonald SD, Murphy K, Beyene J, Ohlsson A. Perinatel outcomes of singleton pregnancies achieved by in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2005;27(5):449–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Helmerhorst FM, Perquin DA, Donker D, Keirse MJ. Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ. 2004;328(7434):261–0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Qin JB, Sheng XQ, Wu D, Gao SY, You YP, Yang TB, et al. Worldwide prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcomes among singleton pregnancies after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(2):285–301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hayashi M, Nakai A, Satoh S, Matsuda Y. Adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes of singleton pregnancies may be related to maternal factors associated with infertility rather than the type of assisted reproductive technology procedure used. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(4):922–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schieve LA, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Macaluso M, Reynolds MA, Wright VC. Perinatal outcome among singleton infants conceived through assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(6):1144–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kelley AS, Smith YR, Padmanabhan V. A narrative review of placental contribution to adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(11):5299–315.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Gasparri ML, Nirgianakis K, Taghavi K, Papadia A, Mueller MD. Placenta previa and placental abruption after assisted reproductive technology in patients with endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;298(1):27–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fujii T, Wada-Hiraike O, Nagamatsu T, Harada M, Hirata T, Koga K, et al. Assisted reproductive technology pregnancy complications are significantly associated with endometriosis severity before conception: a retrospective cohort study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016;14(1):73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang YA, Sullivan EA, Black D, Dean J, Bryant J, Chapman M. Preterm birth and low birth weight after assisted reproductive technology-related pregnancy in Australia between 1996 and 2000. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(6):1650–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ombelet W, Cadron I, Gerris J, De Sutter P, Bosmans E, Martens G, et al. Obstetric and perinatal outcome of 1655 ICSI and 3974 IVF singleton and 1102 ICSI and 2901 IVF twin births: a comparative analysis. Reprod BioMed Online. 2005;11(1):76–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chung K, Coutifaris C, Chalian R, Lin K, Ratcliffe SJ, Castelbaum AJ, et al. Factors influencing adverse perinatal outcomes in pregnancies achieved through use of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(6):1634–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Isaksson R, Gissler M, Tiitinen A. Obstetric outcome among women with unexplained infertility after IVF: a matched case-control study. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(7):1755–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Levine H, Jorgensen N, Martino-Andrade A, Mendiola J, Weksler-Derri D, Mindlis I, et al. Temporal trends in sperm count: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23(6):646–59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Brown MA, Lindheimer MD, de Swiet M, Van Assche A, Moutquin JM. The classification and diagnosis of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: statement from the International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy (ISSHP). Hypertens Pregnancy. 2001;20(1):Ix–xiv.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Anderson JE, Farr SL, Jamieson DJ, Warner L, Macaluso M. Infertility services reported by men in the United States: national survey data. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2466–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Leung AK, Henry MA, Mehta A. Gaps in male infertility health services research. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(Suppl 3):S303–S9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Carpenter MW, Coustan DR. Criteria for screening tests for gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;144(7):768–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Battaglia FC, Lubchenco LO. A practical classification of newborn infants by weight and gestational age. J Pediatr. 1967;71(2):159–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. American College of O, Gynecology. ACOG practice bulletin. Perinatal care at the threshold of viability. Number 38, September 2002. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002;79(2):181–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. American College of O, Gynecologists’ Committee on Obstetric P, Committee on G, Food US, Drug A. Committee Opinion No 671: perinatal risks associated with assisted reproductive technology. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(3):e61–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. American College of O, Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic P, Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive M. Female age-related fertility decline. Committee Opinion No. 589. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(3):719–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jones KT. Meiosis in oocytes: predisposition to aneuploidy and its increased incidence with age. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14(2):143–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jackson RA, Gibson KA, Wu YW, Croughan MS. Perinatal outcomes in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(3):551–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. McGovern PG, Llorens AJ, Skurnick JH, Weiss G, Goldsmith LT. Increased risk of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer or gamete intrafallopian transfer: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(6):1514–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pinborg A, Wennerholm UB, Romundstad LB, Loft A, Aittomaki K, Soderstrom-Anttila V, et al. Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(2):87–104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Szymusik I, Kosinska-Kaczynska K, Krowicka M, Sep M, Marianowski P, Wielgos M. Perinatal outcome of in vitro fertilization singletons - 10 years’ experience of one center. Arch Med Sci. 2019;15(3):666–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Dhont M, De Sutter P, Ruyssinck G, Martens G, Bekaert A. Perinatal outcome of pregnancies after assisted reproduction: a case-control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181(3):688–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Perri T, Chen R, Yoeli R, Merlob P, Orvieto R, Shalev Y, et al. Are singleton assisted reproductive technology pregnancies at risk of prematurity? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2001;18(5):245–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Wennberg AL, Opdahl S, Bergh C, Aaris Henningsen AK, Gissler M, Romundstad LB, et al. Effect of maternal age on maternal and neonatal outcomes after assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(5):1142–9 e14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Di Tommaso M, Sisti G, Colombi I, Seravalli V, Magro Malosso ER, Vannuccini S, et al. Influence of assisted reproductive technologies on maternal and neonatal outcomes in early preterm deliveries. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019;48(10):845–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wang ET, Ramos L, Vyas N, Bhasin G, Simmons CF, Pisarska MD. Maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with infertility. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32(17):2820–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Luke B, Brown MB, Grainger DA, Baker VL, Ginsburg E, Stern JE, et al. The sex ratio of singleton offspring in assisted-conception pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(5):1579–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Jacobsen R, Bostofte E, Engholm G, Hansen J, Skakkebaek NE, Moller H. Fertility and offspring sex ratio of men who develop testicular cancer: a record linkage study. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(9):1958–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Jacobsen R, Bostofte E, Skakkebaek NE, Hansen J, Moller H. Offspring sex ratio of subfertile men and men with abnormal sperm characteristics. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(11):2369–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Montgomery KS, Cubera S, Belcher C, Patrick D, Funderburk H, Melton C, et al. Childbirth education for multiple pregnancy: part 1: prenatal considerations. J Perinat Educ. 2005;14(2):26–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Esther Eshkol, MA, for editorial assistance.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Isca Landesberg and Anat Lavie contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lis Hospital, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, 6 Weizman Street, 6423906, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Maya Ram, Lee Reicher, Ariel Many, Isca Landesberg & Anat Lavie

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, affiliated to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

    Michal Yechieli

  3. Department of Neonatology, Sheba Medical Center, affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Sharon Morag

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Laniado Santz Hospital, affiliated to the Adelson School of Medicine, Ariel University , Ariel, Israel

    Yonit Schechtman

Authors
  1. Maya Ram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michal Yechieli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lee Reicher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ariel Many
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sharon Morag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yonit Schechtman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Isca Landesberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Anat Lavie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anat Lavie.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. The study was approved by the local Institutional Review Board (The Helsinki Committee, Sourasky Medical Center, ID 0284-08-RMC).

Consent to participate

N/A

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

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

Ram, M., Yechieli, M., Reicher, L. et al. Obstetrical outcomes of ART pregnancies in patients with male factor infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet 38, 2173–2182 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02259-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02259-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation