RETRACTED ARTICLE: Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection versus conventional intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

BackgroundIntracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI) is still proposed and employed in the clinical practice to improve the reproductive outcome in infertile couples scheduled for conventional intracytoplasmic sperm injection (cICSI). The aim of the current randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to test the hypothesis that IMSI gives a better live birth delivery rate than cICSI.MethodsInfertile couples scheduled for their first cICSI cycle for male factor were allocated using a simple randomization procedure. All available biological and clinical data were recorded and analyzed in a triple-blind fashion.ResultsOur final analysis involved the first 121 patients (48 and 73 subjects for IMSI and cICSI arm, respectively) because the trial was stopped prematurely on the advice of the data safety and monitoring Committee because of concerns about IMSI efficacy at the first interim analysis. No significant difference between arms was detected in rates of clinical pregnancy per embryo transferred [11/34 (32.3 %) vs. 15/64 (23.4 %); odds ratio (OR) 1.56, 95 % (confidence interval) CI 0.62–3.93, P = 0.343] and of live birth delivery [9/48 (18.8 %) vs. 11/73 (15.1 %); OR 1.30, 95%CI 0.49–3.42, P = 0.594).ConclusionCurrent data did not support the routine use of IMSI in the clinical practice for improving cICSI results in unselected infertile couples with male factor.

Interacytoplasmic Morphologically Selected Sperm Injection: A Tool for Selecting the Best Sperm in Real Time

“…Although there were trends for higher implantation, clinical pregnancies, and live birth rates in the IMSI group, using the technique did not reveal an improvement in the clinical outcome compared with ICSI [57,58]. The authors of the current publication, therefore, will try to discuss the benefits of IMSI in cases of patients with repeated implantation failures, severe male factor infertility, and advanced paternal and maternal age.…”

Noninvasive imaging systems for gametes and embryo selection in IVF programs: a review

“…Giovanni et al . reported that IMSI did not improve fertilization, cleavage, pregnancy and live birth in unselected couples with male factor infertility (La Sala et al ., ). Orief et al .…”

“…Although, significantly higher normal fertilization rate was achieved in the IMSI group, but cleavage rate, top quality embryos, implantation and pregnancy were not improved with IMSI (Gong et al, 2015). Giovanni et al reported that IMSI did not improve fertilization, cleavage, pregnancy and live birth in unselected couples with male factor infertility (La Sala et al, 2015). Orief et al concluded in patients with severe male factor infertility and repeated ICSI failure, IMSI did not provide better results in fertilization, cleavage, pregnancy and implantation rates (Orief et al, 2016).…”

Add-ons in the laboratory: hopeful, but not always helpful

“…Only two further randomized trials have been published since this review and neither reported an increase in live birth. (54,55). A systematic review of both randomized and non-randomized studies suggested benefit in the non-randomized studies but not in the randomized studies (56).…”