Cargando…

Physiological ICSI (PICSI) vs. Conventional ICSI in Couples with Male Factor: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of the physiological ICSI technique (PICSI) vs. conventional ICSI in the prognosis of couples with male factor, with respect to the following outcome measures: live births, clinical pregnancy, implantation, embryo quality, fertilization and miscarriage rates. ME...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Avalos-Durán, Georgina, Ángel, Ana María Emilia Cañedo-Del, Rivero-Murillo, Juana, Zambrano-Guerrero, Jaime Enoc, Carballo-Mondragón, Esperanza, Checa-Vizcaíno, Miguel Ángel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Brazilian Society of Assisted Reproduction 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5982561/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29672006
http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20180027
_version_ 1783328268189958144
author Avalos-Durán, Georgina
Ángel, Ana María Emilia Cañedo-Del
Rivero-Murillo, Juana
Zambrano-Guerrero, Jaime Enoc
Carballo-Mondragón, Esperanza
Checa-Vizcaíno, Miguel Ángel
author_facet Avalos-Durán, Georgina
Ángel, Ana María Emilia Cañedo-Del
Rivero-Murillo, Juana
Zambrano-Guerrero, Jaime Enoc
Carballo-Mondragón, Esperanza
Checa-Vizcaíno, Miguel Ángel
author_sort Avalos-Durán, Georgina
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of the physiological ICSI technique (PICSI) vs. conventional ICSI in the prognosis of couples with male factor, with respect to the following outcome measures: live births, clinical pregnancy, implantation, embryo quality, fertilization and miscarriage rates. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature, extracting raw data and performing data analysis. Patient(s): Couples with the male factor, who were subjected to in-vitro fertilization. Main Outcome Measures: rates of live births, clinical pregnancy, implantation, embryo quality, fertilization and miscarriage. RESULTS: In the systematic search, we found 2,918 studies and an additional study from other sources; only two studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The rates of live births, clinical pregnancy, implantation, embryo quality, fertilization and miscarriage were similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: There is no statistically significant difference between PICSI vs. ICSI, for any of the outcomes analyzed in this study. Enough information is still not available to prove the efficacy of the PICSI technique over ICSI in couples with male factor.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5982561
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Brazilian Society of Assisted Reproduction
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59825612018-06-04 Physiological ICSI (PICSI) vs. Conventional ICSI in Couples with Male Factor: A Systematic Review Avalos-Durán, Georgina Ángel, Ana María Emilia Cañedo-Del Rivero-Murillo, Juana Zambrano-Guerrero, Jaime Enoc Carballo-Mondragón, Esperanza Checa-Vizcaíno, Miguel Ángel JBRA Assist Reprod Review Article OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of the physiological ICSI technique (PICSI) vs. conventional ICSI in the prognosis of couples with male factor, with respect to the following outcome measures: live births, clinical pregnancy, implantation, embryo quality, fertilization and miscarriage rates. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature, extracting raw data and performing data analysis. Patient(s): Couples with the male factor, who were subjected to in-vitro fertilization. Main Outcome Measures: rates of live births, clinical pregnancy, implantation, embryo quality, fertilization and miscarriage. RESULTS: In the systematic search, we found 2,918 studies and an additional study from other sources; only two studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The rates of live births, clinical pregnancy, implantation, embryo quality, fertilization and miscarriage were similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: There is no statistically significant difference between PICSI vs. ICSI, for any of the outcomes analyzed in this study. Enough information is still not available to prove the efficacy of the PICSI technique over ICSI in couples with male factor. Brazilian Society of Assisted Reproduction 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5982561/ /pubmed/29672006 http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20180027 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Avalos-Durán, Georgina
Ángel, Ana María Emilia Cañedo-Del
Rivero-Murillo, Juana
Zambrano-Guerrero, Jaime Enoc
Carballo-Mondragón, Esperanza
Checa-Vizcaíno, Miguel Ángel
Physiological ICSI (PICSI) vs. Conventional ICSI in Couples with Male Factor: A Systematic Review
title Physiological ICSI (PICSI) vs. Conventional ICSI in Couples with Male Factor: A Systematic Review
title_full Physiological ICSI (PICSI) vs. Conventional ICSI in Couples with Male Factor: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Physiological ICSI (PICSI) vs. Conventional ICSI in Couples with Male Factor: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Physiological ICSI (PICSI) vs. Conventional ICSI in Couples with Male Factor: A Systematic Review
title_short Physiological ICSI (PICSI) vs. Conventional ICSI in Couples with Male Factor: A Systematic Review
title_sort physiological icsi (picsi) vs. conventional icsi in couples with male factor: a systematic review
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5982561/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29672006
http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20180027
work_keys_str_mv AT avalosdurangeorgina physiologicalicsipicsivsconventionalicsiincoupleswithmalefactorasystematicreview
AT angelanamariaemiliacanedodel physiologicalicsipicsivsconventionalicsiincoupleswithmalefactorasystematicreview
AT riveromurillojuana physiologicalicsipicsivsconventionalicsiincoupleswithmalefactorasystematicreview
AT zambranoguerrerojaimeenoc physiologicalicsipicsivsconventionalicsiincoupleswithmalefactorasystematicreview
AT carballomondragonesperanza physiologicalicsipicsivsconventionalicsiincoupleswithmalefactorasystematicreview
AT checavizcainomiguelangel physiologicalicsipicsivsconventionalicsiincoupleswithmalefactorasystematicreview