• The analysis of the efficiency of the program ІМSI at fertilization in vitro

The analysis of the efficiency of the program ІМSI at fertilization in vitro

HEALTH OF WOMAN. 2016.6(112):28–32; doi 10.15574/HW.2016.112.28

The analysis of the efficiency of the program ІМSI at fertilization in vitro

Kutsenko A. O. 
Shupyk National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Kiev

The aim of the study: to analyze the results of the program ІМSI as one of the methods of VRT to ensure in vitro fertilization.

Materials and methods. The basis of the study consisted of 100 couples with male factor infertility. Pair was examined and treated at the Institute of reproductive medicine (Kiev) in 2013-2015. The Diagnosis verified, assistance was provided in the framework of standard clinical protocols. The 51 men were diagnosed oligoasthenozoospermia, obstructive and non-obstructive azoospermia – in 28 and 21 men, respectively.

Results. There were identified features according to the results of cycles. When native – biochemical pregnancy achieved almost equally often oligoasthenozoospermia and obstructive azoospermia (53.0±6.9% and 53.4±9.4%), whereas non-obstructive in two times less (28.6±9.8%). When critical the difference in results is not traced with obstructive and non-obstructive azoospermia and was 16% lower in cases of oligoasthenozoospermia. Biochemical pregnancies occurred in 63 of the 100 pairs (63.0±4.8%), with oligoasthenozoospermia and 37 of 51 (72.5 per cent), obstructive azoospermia – in 19 of 28 (67.8 per cent), non-obstructive – 7 of 21 (33.3 percent). After reproductive losses (5 of 63, 7.9% as) the end result was lower – 58.0±4.9 per cent. The number of births in total in the group with oligoasthenozoospermia was 35 of 51 (68.6%), obstructive and non-obstructive azoospermia – 17 of 28 (60.7 per cent) and 6 of 21 (28.6 per cent), respectively.

Conclusion. The data motivate the need of finding opportunities to improve program performance ІМSI. Promising in this regard is the preparation of the pair to her conduct, which goes beyond the limits of the medical, carried out according to the protocols. An important point should be the identification and leveling of risk factors for general medicine and a social plan.

Key words: male infertility, the program ІМSI, results.

REFERENCES

1. Vinogradov IV, Alekseev RA, Dendeberov ES, Pikalov EA. 2011. Sovremennyiy vzglyad na problemu diagnostiki sekretornogo besplodiya u muzhchin. Vestnik poslediplomnogo med. obrazovaniya 1:19–20.

2. Ishakova GM, Izmaylova SM, Izmaylov AA. 2015. Geneticheskie aspektyi muzhskogo besplodiya. Sovremennyie problemyi nauki i obrazovaniya 3:85.

3. Manusharova RA. 2014. Besplodnyiy brak. Effektivnaya farmakologiya 9:34–39.

4. Mingbolatov ASh. 2011. Reproduktivnaya funktsiya u muzhchin pri autoimmunnyih reaktsiyah protiv spermatozoidov. Avtoref. dis. kand. med. nauk: 14.01.40 – urologiya. M:21.

5. Tymchenko O, Koba OP, Lychak OV, Mykytenko DO. 2014. Riven bezpliddia v oblastiakh za danymy MOZ Ukrainy. Medychni perspektyvy KhIKh;3:105–111.

6. Chalyiy ME, Ahvlediani ND, Harchilova RR. 2016. Muzhskoe besplodie. Urologiya (prilozhenie) 1:2–16.

7. Shuliak OV, Vorobets DZ. Problema spermahliutynatsii v protsesi likuvannia cholovichoi neplidnosti. Elektronnyi resurs. Rezhym dostupu: http://www.ukraine.uroweb.ru

8. Yuzko OM, Zhylka NIa, Rudenko NH, Aloshyna HM, Yuzko TA. 2012. Dopomizhni reproduktyvni tekhnolohii v Ukraini. Reproduktyvna medytsyna 3:15–19.

9. Balaban B, Yakin K, Alatas C, Oktem O et al. 2011. Clinical outcome of intracytoplasmic injection of spermatozoa morphologically selected under high magnification: a prospective randomized study. Reprod Biomed Online 22(5):472–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.11.003; PMid:21324747

10. Bozhedomov VA, Nikolaeva MA, Ushakova IV, Lipatova NA et al. 2015. Functional deficit of sperm and fertility impairment in men with antisperm antibodies. Journal of Reproductive. Immunology 112:95–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jri.2015.08.002; PMid:26409252

11. Calhaz-Jorge С, CastillaAlcala JA et al. 2014. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Preliminary results. Hum Reprod.: Abstracts of the 30th Annual Meeting of the ESHRE:54–55.

12. De Vos A, Polyzos NP, Verheyen G, Tournaye H. 2013. Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI): a critical and evidence-based review. Basic Clin. Androl. 112:23:10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2051-4190-23-10

13. Delaroche L, Yazbeck C, Gout C, Kahn V et al. 2013. Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI) after repeated IVF or ICSI failures: a prospective comparative study. Eur. J. Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 167(1):76–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.11.011; PMid:23276454

14. European Association of Urology. Guidelines on Male Sexual Dysfunction: Erectile Dysfunction and Premature Ejaculation. 2015:21.

15. Gatimel N, Parinaud J, Leandri RD. 2016. Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI) does not improve outcome in patients with two successive IVF-ICSI failures. J. Assist Reprod Genet. 33(3):349–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0645-5; PMid:26754750

16. Gosdlvez J, Lopez-Fernandez C, Hermoso A et al. 2014. Sperm DNA fragmentation in zebrafish (Danio rerio) and its impact on fertility and embryo viability — Implications for fisheries and aquaculture. Aquaculture 433:173–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.05.036

17. Kim HJ, Yoon HJ Jang JM, Oh HS, Lee YJ et al. 2014. Comparison between intracytoplasmic sperm injection and intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection in oligo-astheno-teratozoospermia patients. Clin. Exp Reprod Med. 41(1):9–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2014.41.1.9; PMid:24693492 PMCid:PMC3968258

18. Krausz C, Escamilla AR, Chianese C. 2015. Genetics of male infertility: from research to clinic. Reproduction 150(5):159–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1530/REP-15-0261; PMid:26447148

19. Simon L, Wilcox A, Carrell DT. 2013. Intracytoplasmic morphology-selected sperm injection. Methods Mol. Biol. 927:247–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-038-0_22; PMid:22992919