Comparison of conventional IVF versus ICSI in non-male factor, normoresponder patients

ABSTRACT

Conventional IVF and ICSI are two common techniques to achieve fertilization. IVF has long been used for treatment of infertility, although it is not an effective treatment in severe male infertility. The use of ICSI has been expanded in severe male factor and fertilization failure after IVF cycle. In spite of the widespread use of ICSI in patients with non-male factor infertility, there is still little evidence to confirm its effectiveness in this population. To evaluate assisted reproductive technology outcomes between IVF and ICSI cycles in non-male factor, normoresponder patients. A total of 220 non-male factors, normoresponder patients who were indicated for ART were enrolled in this study. The patients received standard long GnRH agonist or GnRH antagonist protocols for ovarian stimulation and after oocytes retrieval, the patients were divided into two groups [IVF and ICSI groups]. In IVF group [n=112], all of retrieved oocytes were treated by conventional IVF and in ICSI group [n=88], microinjection [ICSI] was done on all of retrieved oocytes. In IVF group, fertilization and implantation rates were significantly higher than ICSI group [66.22% and 16.67% in IVF group versus 57.46% and 11.17% in ICSI group, respectively]. Chemical and clinical pregnancy rates were statistically higher in IVF group as compared with the ICSI group [42.9% vs. 27.3% and 35.7% vs. 21.5%, respectively]. According to our study, the routine use of ICSI is not improved fertilization, implantation and chemical pregnancy rates and is not recommended in non-male factor, normozoospermic patients