Obstetrical and Neonatal Outcomes of 3,028 Singletons Born After Advanced ART Techniques: Ejaculated Sperm Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection, Artificial Oocyte Activation, in Vitro Maturation and Testicular Sperm Extraction

H. Hattori, Yuko Atsumi, Y. Nakajo, N. Aono, M. Koizumi, M. Toya, H. Igarashi, K. Kyono
{"title":"Obstetrical and Neonatal Outcomes of 3,028 Singletons Born After Advanced ART Techniques: Ejaculated Sperm Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection, Artificial Oocyte Activation, in Vitro Maturation and Testicular Sperm Extraction","authors":"H. Hattori, Yuko Atsumi, Y. Nakajo, N. Aono, M. Koizumi, M. Toya, H. Igarashi, K. Kyono","doi":"10.1142/s2661318221500031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: To evaluate obstetrical and neonatal outcomes of singletons conceived after advanced assisted reproductive technology (ART) techniques: conventional IVF pregnancies (C-IVF), ejaculated sperm intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), assisted oocyte activation (AOA), in vitro maturation (IVM), and testicular sperm extraction (TESE). Methods: The subjects were 3,028 singletons who were born after fresh or frozen embryo transfer. The subjects were separated into five groups: C-IVF (n = 855), ICSI (n = 1,869), AOA (n = 42), IVM (n = 32), and TESE (n = 230). We evaluated obstetrical and neonatal outcomes calculating the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) using multivariable logistic regression analyses for fresh and frozen embryos and for cleavage and blastocyst transfer. The C-IVF group was used as a background control for the ICSI group. Moreover, the TESE, AOA, and IVM groups were compared to the ICSI group to evaluate the effects of the ICSI procedure itself. Results: The incidence of perinatal complications was significantly lower in the ICSI-fresh group (AOR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.10–0.83, p ¡ 0.05). Regarding sex ratio, the IVM was significantly associated with sex ratio imbalance toward female in both fresh and frozen groups (AOR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.10–0.96, AOR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.07–0.98, p ¡ 0.05). On the other hand, there were no significant differences in preterm birth rate, low birth weight rate and congenital abnormalities rate between conventional IVF, ICSI, and the other groups. Conclusions: There were no negative effects on obstetrical and neonatal outcomes between conventional IVF and ICSI. Although this was a limited sample size study, advanced ART technologies such as AOA, IVM, and TESE also seem to have a low risk of adverse impact on obstetrical and neonatal outcomes but may have a slight impact on sex ratio.","PeriodicalId":34382,"journal":{"name":"Fertility Reproduction","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fertility Reproduction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/s2661318221500031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To evaluate obstetrical and neonatal outcomes of singletons conceived after advanced assisted reproductive technology (ART) techniques: conventional IVF pregnancies (C-IVF), ejaculated sperm intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), assisted oocyte activation (AOA), in vitro maturation (IVM), and testicular sperm extraction (TESE). Methods: The subjects were 3,028 singletons who were born after fresh or frozen embryo transfer. The subjects were separated into five groups: C-IVF (n = 855), ICSI (n = 1,869), AOA (n = 42), IVM (n = 32), and TESE (n = 230). We evaluated obstetrical and neonatal outcomes calculating the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) using multivariable logistic regression analyses for fresh and frozen embryos and for cleavage and blastocyst transfer. The C-IVF group was used as a background control for the ICSI group. Moreover, the TESE, AOA, and IVM groups were compared to the ICSI group to evaluate the effects of the ICSI procedure itself. Results: The incidence of perinatal complications was significantly lower in the ICSI-fresh group (AOR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.10–0.83, p ¡ 0.05). Regarding sex ratio, the IVM was significantly associated with sex ratio imbalance toward female in both fresh and frozen groups (AOR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.10–0.96, AOR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.07–0.98, p ¡ 0.05). On the other hand, there were no significant differences in preterm birth rate, low birth weight rate and congenital abnormalities rate between conventional IVF, ICSI, and the other groups. Conclusions: There were no negative effects on obstetrical and neonatal outcomes between conventional IVF and ICSI. Although this was a limited sample size study, advanced ART technologies such as AOA, IVM, and TESE also seem to have a low risk of adverse impact on obstetrical and neonatal outcomes but may have a slight impact on sex ratio.
先进ART技术后3028例单胎新生儿的产科和新生儿结局:射精卵浆内精子注射、人工卵母细胞激活、体外成熟和睾丸精子提取
背景:评估先进辅助生殖技术(ART)技术后单胎妊娠的产科和新生儿结局:常规IVF妊娠(C-IVF)、精精胞浆内单精子注射(ICSI)、辅助卵母细胞激活(AOA)、体外成熟(IVM)和睾丸精子提取(TESE)。方法:以新鲜或冷冻胚胎移植后出生的单胎3028例为研究对象。受试者分为5组:C-IVF (n = 855)、ICSI (n = 1869)、AOA (n = 42)、IVM (n = 32)和TESE (n = 230)。我们使用多变量logistic回归分析计算新鲜和冷冻胚胎以及卵裂和囊胚移植的调整优势比(AOR)来评估产科和新生儿结局。C-IVF组作为ICSI组的背景对照。此外,将TESE、AOA和IVM组与ICSI组进行比较,以评估ICSI手术本身的效果。结果:ICSI-fresh组围产期并发症发生率明显低于对照组(AOR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.10 ~ 0.83, p < 0.05)。在性别比方面,新鲜组和冷冻组的IVM与女性性别比失衡显著相关(AOR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.10 ~ 0.96; AOR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.07 ~ 0.98, p < 0.05)。另一方面,在早产率、低出生体重率和先天性异常率方面,常规IVF、ICSI组与其他组无显著差异。结论:常规IVF和ICSI对产科和新生儿结局没有负面影响。虽然这是一项样本量有限的研究,但先进的ART技术,如AOA、IVM和TESE,似乎对产科和新生儿结局的不良影响风险也很低,但可能对性别比例有轻微影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信