The Outcome of Assisted Reproductive Techniques among Couples with Male Factors at Prince Khalid Bin Sultan Fertility Centre, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2017.102Keywords:
Pregnancy outcomes, male factors infertility, Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI), in vitro fertilization (IVF), intrauterine insemination (IUI)Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thirty-three percent of infertility due to paternal factors, there are an increasing proportion of couples who decide to conceive by assisted reproductive techniques (ART). The outcome prediction is pivotal for decision making.
AIM: We aimed to study the pregnancy outcomes of different ART with male factors infertility.
METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study conducted at Tabuk, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. One hundred fifteen patients' records reviewed using a structured checklist to collect demographic data, sperm (concentration, motility, and morphology). Female with significant infertility factor were excluded. Chi-square was used for the outcome of various ART.
RESULTS: Out of 115 couples with male factors; treated by Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI), In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and Intrauterine Insemination (IUI); the mean age was 35.2 ± 6.3 years for men and 29.7 ± 5.1 for females. IVF had the highest success rate overall and had a high pregnancy rate with oligospermia and asthenospermia. ICSI has a good outcome for those with azoospermia, severe oligospermia, and teratozoospermia. IUI must be tried as a first line treatment when semen concentration is more than 10 million sperm/ml. all are not significant (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: No significant differences were reported in the pregnancy outcome between various assisted reproductive techniques, smoking, type of infertility and medication.Downloads
Metrics
Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block
References
Al-Turkey HA. Prevalence of primary and secondary infertility from a tertiary centre in eastern Saudi Arabia. Middle East Fertility Society Journal. 2015;20 (4): 237–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mefs.2015.02.001
Haifa A. A 5-year analysis of semen parameters in Saudi Arabian men attending infertility clinics Journal of International Medical Research. 2016; 44(3): 656–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060516632108 PMid:27036147
Agarwal A, Mulgund A, Hamada A, Chyatte MR. A unique view on male infertility around the globe. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015; 13: 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-015-0032-1 PMid:25928197 PMCid:PMC4424520
Cooper TG, Noonan E, von Eckardstein S, Auger J, Baker HW, Behre HM, Haugen TB, Kruger T, Wang C, Mbizvo MT, Vogelsong KM. World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(3):231-45. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmp048 PMid:19934213
Hughes EG, Collins JP, Garner PR. Homologous artificial insemination for oligo asthenospermia: a randomized controlled study comparing intracervical and intrauterine techniques. Fertil Steril. 1987;48(2):278-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)59356-X
Ho PC, Poon IM, Chan SY, Wang C. Intrauterine insemination is not useful in oligo asthenospermia. Fertil Steril. 1989;51(4):682-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)60621-0
Ombelet W, Bosnians E, Janssen M, Cox A, Vlasselaer J, Gyselaers W, et al. Semen parameters in a fertile versus subfertile population: a need for change in the interpretation of semen testing. Hum Reprod. 1997; 12: 987–993. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/12.5.987 PMid:9194652
Khorram O, Patrizio P, Wang C, Swerdloff R. Reproductive technologies for male infertility. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2001; 86(6):2373-9. https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem.86.6.7571 PMid:11397826
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(92)92425-F
Van Steirteghem AC, Liu J, Joris H, Nagy Z, Janssenswillen C, Tournaye H, Derde MP, Van Assche E, Devroey P. Higher success rate by intracytoplasmic sperm injection than by subzonal insemination. Report of the second series of 300 consecutive treatment cycles. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(7):1055-60. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138191 PMid:8408486
Shevell T, Malone FD, Vidaver J, Porter TF, Luthy DA, Comstock CH, Hankins GD, et al. Assistant reproductive technology and pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(5Pt 1):1039-45. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000183593.24583.7c PMid:16260523
Katzorke T, Kolodziej FB. The significance of insemination in the era of IVF and ICSI. Urologe A. 2010;49(7):842-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-009-2219-6 PMid:20238208
Hoffman B, Schorge J, Schaffer J, Halvorson L, Bradshaw K. Williams Gynecology. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2012:529-35.
Badawy A, Elnashar A, Eltotongy M. Effect of sperm morphology and number on success of intrauterine insemination. Fertil steril. 2009; 91(3):777-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.12.010 PMid:18304534
Kastrop PM, Weima SM, Van Kooij RJ, Te Velde ER. Comparison between intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in-vitro fertilization (IVF) with high insemination concentration after total fertilization failure in a previous IVF attempt. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(1):65-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/14.1.65 PMid:10374096
Allen NC, Hebert M, CM, Maxson WS, Rogers BJ, Diamond MP, Wentz AC. Intrauterine insemination: a critical review. Fertil Steril. 1985;44(5):569-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)48969-7
Zhao Y, Vlahos N, Wyncott D, Petrella C, Garcia J, Zacur H, et al. Impact of semen characteristics on the success of intrauterine insemination. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004;21:143–8. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JARG.0000031246.76666.f6 PMid:15279320 PMCid:PMC3455523
Cohlen BJ. Should we continue performing intrauterine inseminations in the year 2004? Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2004; 59: 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1159/000080492 PMid:15334020
Kossakowski J, Stephenson M, Smith H. Intrauterine insemination with husband's sperm: comparison of pregnancy rates in couples with cervical factor, male factor, immunological factor and idiopathic infertility.Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;33(2):183–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.1993.tb02389.x PMid:8216122
Meschede D, Lemcke B, Exeler JR, De Geyter C, Behre HM, Nieschlag E, et al. Chromosome abnormalities in 447 couples undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection- prevalence, types, sex distribution and reproductive relevance. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(3):576-82. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/13.3.576 PMid:9572415
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): 2474-2479. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/14.10.2474 PMid:10527972
Tournaye H, Verheyen G, Albano C, Camus M, van Landuyt L et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial and a metaanalysis of the literature. Fertil Steril. 2002; 78: 1030–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(02)03377-0
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. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.17985 PMid:25602996 PMCid:PMC4343214
Kovac JR, Khanna A, Lipshultz LI. The effects of cigarette smoking on male fertility. Postgrad Med. 2015;127(3):338-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.2015.1015928 PMid:25697426 PMCid:PMC4639396
Lee C, Keith J. A Retrospective Review Comparing the Use of Gonal-Fand Metrodin-HP for In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF). Med J Malaysia. 2003;58(1):95.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
