Genetic considerations related to intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor indications: a committee opinion

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection, while typically effective for overcoming low or absent fertilization in couples with a clear abnormality of semen parameters, is frequently used in combination with assisted reproductive technologies for other etiologies of infertility in the presence of semen parameters that meet the World Health Organization 2010 normative reference values. This committee opinion provides a critical review of the literature, where available, to identify situations where this may or may not be of benefit. This document replaces the previously published document of the same name, last published in 2012 (Fertil Steril 2012;98:1395-9).

Is ICSI Risky?

As assisted reproductive technology (ART) methods become the mainstream of infertility treatment, it has become even more critical to reassess its safety. Following the results of a study published by the Robinson Institute in the New England Journal of Medicine, the risk of ART, especially intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), has never been so closely scrutinized. This paper traces the origins and development of ICSI, assesses the risks documented in the literature, and finally interprets the implications of the study for couples contemplating therapy. We support the need for continued vigilance towards ICSI and the importance in investigating male-factor infertility as a prequel to its use.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor infertility: a committee opinion

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection, while typically effective for overcoming low or absent fertilization in couples with a clear abnormality of semen parameters, is frequently utilized in combination with assisted reproductive technologies for other etiologies of infertility in the presence of normal semen parameters. This committee opinion provides a critical review of the literature, where available, to identify situations where this may or may not be of benefit.

Linear nevus sebaceous syndrome in a neonate conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection

Linear nevus sebaceous syndrome is a multisystem disorder including nevus sebaceous, which is the hallmark of this syndrome, together with central nervous system, ocular and skeletal anomalies. We report a case of extensive skin lesions, CNS and eye anomalies in a full term infant who was conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

A decision analysis of treatments for nonobstructive azoospermia associated with varicocele

OBJECTIVE

To examine the economic impact of initial treatments for varicocele-associated nonobstructive azoospermia, specifically varicocelectomy versus microsurgical testicular sperm extraction (TESE) with IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

DESIGN

Decision analytic model based on 1) outcomes data from Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) database and peer-reviewed literature and 2) costing data from Medicare Resource-Based Relative Value Scale and sampling of high volume US IVF centers.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

PATIENT(S)

Simulation with a decision analytic model.

INTERVENTION(S)

Variation of successful spontaneous live delivery after varicocelectomy versus rate of successful live delivery after IVF/ICSI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Cost-effectiveness.

RESULT(S)

Microsurgical TESE was more cost effective than varicocelectomy. In 1999, initial treatment with microsurgical TESE was more cost effective ($65,515) than varicocelectomy ($76,878). Relative cost-effectiveness was unchanged in 2005: $69,731 versus $79,576. The cost-effectiveness of both treatments improved in relation to projections by inflation. Sensitivity analyses suggest that the relative cost-effectiveness of TESE versus varicocelectomy can only be changed with either substantial improvement in spontaneous live delivery rates after varicocelectomy or with deterioration in IVF success rates.

CONCLUSION(S)

Microsurgical TESE appears to be more cost effective than varicocelectomy for treatment of varicocele-associated nonobstructive azoospermia when indirect costs are considered. The cost-effectiveness of both treatments has improved with time. These results may be tailored with institution-specific data to allow more individualized results.