TY - JOUR
T1 - Physiological ICSI (PICSI) vs. conventional ICSI in couples with male factor: A systematic review
AU - Avalos-Durán, Georgina
AU - Ángel, Ana María Emilia Cañedo Del
AU - Rivero-Murillo, Juana
AU - Zambrano-Guerrero, Jaime Enoc
AU - Carballo-Mondragón, Esperanza
AU - Checa-Vizcaíno, Miguel Ángel
PY - 2018/1/1
Y1 - 2018/1/1
N2 - © 2018, Sociedade Brasileira de Reproducao Assistida. All rights reservered. 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.
AB - © 2018, Sociedade Brasileira de Reproducao Assistida. All rights reservered. 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.
KW - HA sperm selection
KW - Hyaluronic acid
KW - Male factor
KW - PICSI
KW - Physiological ICSI
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85049932816
U2 - 10.5935/1518-0557.20180027
DO - 10.5935/1518-0557.20180027
M3 - Review article
C2 - 29672006
SN - 1517-5693
VL - 22
SP - 139
EP - 147
JO - Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida
JF - Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida
IS - 2
ER -