image by: HWN

HWN Suggests

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection for all or for a few?

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has undeniably been a breakthrough in assisted reproductive technology (ART). However, after its discovery, it has been followed by a period of hope, which led into a great paradox: believing that a new technique that helped overcome severe male factor infertility could be a panacea for all infertile patients... The fact is that, although ICSI has been a breakthrough in the treatment of male factor infertility, we have “abused” this highly effective technique. The proof is that none of the available reports have shown an improvement regarding the reproductive outcomes with this widespread misuse. With similar clinical outcomes, we must bear in mind costs,…

read full article

Featured

 Thoughts on the popularity of ICSI

The topic of infertility has been explored across a wide range of fields- medicine, social science, religion, and philosophy. Infertility has led to the appearance of what is known today as assisted reproductive technology (ART), with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) becoming the most widely used insemination method worldwide. Indeed, ICSI is used today in 66.5% of fertility centers. The reliability of ICSI to achieve fertilization in cases of severe male factor infertility has led to the dramatic expansion of its use; it is now commonly utilized for low oocyte maturity, with cryopreserved oocytes, in conjunction with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) and for patients of advanced maternal age.

 Tinder for Sperm: Even in the Petri Dish, Looks and Athleticism Are Prized

Fertility treatments have gone so high-tech, it’s logical to assume there’s an exact formula for each procedure. Embryos are frozen and warmed at precise temperatures, hormones are measured to the billionth of a gram, and women inject themselves with strictly-calibrated doses of drugs. But sperm selection remains more art than science.

Articles of Interest

Standard IVF is fine for most people. So why are so many offered an expensive sperm injection they don’t need?

An expensive IVF technique, routinely offered in fertility clinics around the world, offers no extra benefits to standard IVF in the vast majority of cases, our new research shows. The technique, known as intracytoplasmic sperm injection or ICSI, was developed to help couples where the man has a low sperm count. But it is now the main fertilisation method clinics use in Australia and New Zealand, even when sperm counts are normal.

An inconvenient truth: ICSI is not necessary for the majority of IVF patients

It has long been accepted that the incidence of male factor infertility in cases of fertility treatment is only 30 to 40 percent at most. However, data from the HFEA and the National Perinatal Statistics Unit shows that ICSI is now used to treat 53 to 68 percent of all couples receiving fertility treatment in the UK and Australasia, respectively. Clearly, there is a major discrepancy between the observed rate of male factor infertility and the reported use of ICSI.

Do I Need Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI)?

The ICSI procedure fertilizes 50–80% of eggs. Fertilization isn’t guaranteed even when a sperm is injected into the egg. Remember that fertilization rates don’t tell you the clinical pregnancy or live birth rates. Once fertilization happens, the success rate for a couple using ICSI with IVF is the same as a couple using regular IVF treatment.

Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) – What are the risks?

Unlike most therapeutic procedures used in medicine, the assisted reproductive technologies never underwent rigorous safety testing before clinical use. Treatments for infertility overcome natural barriers that prevent fertilization. Because these technologies are used to overcome infertility phenotypes that may have a genetic basis, the possibility exists that unwanted genetic traits may be transmitted to offspring, and while researchers believe that perhaps 75% or more of all infertility has a contributing genetic basis, our ability to diagnose these defects remains limited.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection 30 years on: too much of a good thing?

The original intent, however, has been widened over the past three decades to include many other aspects of infertility, including widespread acceptance for non–male factor infertility. Recent statistics in the United States as well as many other countries have shown a rapid increase in its use, outstripping any reasonable indications for male factor infertility.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection for male infertility and consequences for offspring

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has become the most commonly used method of fertilization in assisted reproductive technology. The primary reasons for its popularity stem from its effectiveness, the standardization of the procedure, which means that it can easily be incorporated into the routine practice of fertility centres worldwide, and the fact that it can be used to treat virtually all forms of infertility. ICSI is the clear method of choice for overcoming untreatable severe male factor infertility, but its (over)use in other male and non-male factor infertility scenarios is not evidence-based.

Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection: A Bioethical Analysis

Only time will tell what whether ICSI is truly a safe and effective procedure. Until that moment, perhaps an intermediate stance is in order. This view places specific limits on the level of risk to be undertaken, and furthermore, on the nature of the risk as well. For instance, ICSI might be acceptable so long as risks do not exceed the rate normally expected in a natural pregnancy.

Should I opt for intracytoplasmic sperm injection or should I not: high-tech no matter what?

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) stands out as a groundbreaking innovation in the realm of treating male infertility, and there is unanimous consensus on this fact. Having technology that is so successful, particularly in severe cases of male infertility, without obvious short- and long-term side effects is powerful and is an almost surreal advancement in the field of medicine. Nonetheless, as with any advanced treatment, it is important that we exercise caution, and approach it with a keen awareness of its potential unknown consequences.

Studies cast further doubt on indiscriminate use of ICSI

Although ICSI is not often used outside of male-factor infertility in the UK, it is not the case in the rest of the world. Authors of the US study state that while ICSI has helped many couples, the increased cost and controversy over adverse neonatal outcomes should be taken into consideration, highlighting concerns about its overuse outside its primary indication for male infertility.

The Case Against Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection for All

While intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is the most significant advance in assisted reproductive technology (ART) for the alleviation of male factor subfertility, its use has become increasingly widespread and indiscriminate in ART clinics, extending well beyond the reasons for its necessary application. But ICSI is not “better” than IVF using any established outcome metric. Indeed, available evidence indicates that ICSI yields fewer embryos per treatment cycle, embryos which may have impaired developmental potential compared to IVF-derived embryos.

What Does Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Change in Embryonic Development? The Spermatozoon Contribution

The intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) technique was invented to solve severe male infertility due to altered sperm parameters. Nowadays, it is applied worldwide for the treatment of couple infertility. ICSI is performed with any available spermatozoon from surgery or ejaculated samples, whatever are the sperm motility, morphology or quantity.

Who is most likely to benefit from ICSI?

ntracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was developed in the early 1990s to help couples where the male had poor sperm quality. It’s similar to IVF except that instead of adding thousands of sperm to each egg and waiting for one to fertilise the egg, the scientist uses special equipment to pick up a single sperm in a pipette and inject one into each egg. Because it requires special equipment and trained scientists, it costs about $500-$800 more than standard IVF (once Medicare rebates have been taken into account). While ICSI has increased the chance of a live birth for couples where the man has been diagnosed with infertility, there has been a global trend towards clinics using ICSI for other people too. The latest national data for Australia shows that in 2017, 62 per cent of embryo transfers involved an embryo created with ICSI. This occurred when fewer than 40 per cent of couples have a diagnosis of male infertility.

Resources

ReproductiveFacts.org

Before a man’s sperm can fertilize a woman’s egg, the head of the sperm must attach to the egg. Once attached, the sperm pushes through the outer layer of the egg to the inside (cytoplasm) where fertilization takes place. Sometimes the sperm cannot penetrate the outer layer of the egg. The egg’s outer layer may be thick or hard to penetrate, or the sperm may be unable to swim normally. In these cases, a procedure called intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) can be done along with in vitro fertilization (IVF) to help fertilize the egg. During ICSI, a single sperm is injected directly into the cytoplasm of an egg.