A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Different Assisted Reproductive Techniques (ART) in Couples with Unexplained Infertility
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/JEHS.2024.71.56073Keywords
unexplained infertility, assisted reproductive technology (ART), in vitro fertilization (IVF), intrauterine insemination (IUI), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), fertility outcomes, male factor infertility, ovarian stimulation, reproductive medicine, preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)Abstract
Introduction
Unexplained infertility, impacting 10-30% of couples, remains a significant challenge due to the absence of identifiable etiologies, complicating treatment decisions. Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) like IVF, IUI, and ICSI have become primary interventions, though their efficacy varies across patient subgroups.
Objective of this Study
This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy of IVF, IUI, and ICSI in managing unexplained infertility, considering patient demographics and prior ART outcomes, to guide evidence-based clinical decision-making.
Matherials and methods
A detailed literature search was undertaken across PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase to locate research on the adverse effects of monoclonal antibodies used in asthma management. The search covered English-language studies from the start of each database up to 2024. To ensure comprehensiveness, additional relevant studies were found by examining the reference lists of selected articles.
Aim of the Knowledge
The research seeks to clarify ART effectiveness in unexplained infertility, identifying optimal scenarios for each treatment type and assessing advancements that enhance reproductive outcomes while minimizing risks.
Conclusions
The analysis suggests IVF as the most effective option for complex cases, especially in advanced maternal age, though it involves higher risks. IUI is a lower-risk, cost-effective initial treatment, while ICSI is indicated for male factor infertility. Tailored ART strategies based on individual reproductive profiles are essential.
Summary
This study underscores the need for individualized ART approaches in unexplained infertility. IVF remains highly effective for challenging cases, while IUI and ICSI provide viable alternatives depending on patient-specific factors. Future research should aim to refine ART protocols to optimize success rates and minimize associated risks.
References
References
I. A. Abdelazim, P. Purohit, R. H. Farag, and G. Zhurabekova, “Unexplained infertility: prevalence, possible causes and treatment options. A review of the literature,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecological Investigations, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 17–22, 2018, doi: 10.5114/JOGI.2018.74250.
K. S. Abdallah, S. Hunt, S. A. Abdullah, B. W. J. Mol, and M. A. Youssef, “How and Why to Define Unexplained Infertility?,” Semin Reprod Med, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 55–60, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1055/S-0040-1718709.
M. Szamatowicz, “Assisted reproductive technology in reproductive medicine - possibilities and limitations,” Ginekol Pol, vol. 87, no. 12, pp. 820–823, 2016, doi: 10.5603/GP.2016.0095.
R. Wang, R. Van Eekelen, M. H. Mochtar, F. Mol, and M. Van Wely, “Treatment Strategies for Unexplained Infertility,” Semin Reprod Med, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 48–54, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1055/S-0040-1719074.
I. A. Abdelazim, P. Purohit, R. H. Farag, and G. Zhurabekova, “Unexplained infertility: prevalence, possible causes and treatment options. A review of the literature,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecological Investigations, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 17–22, 2018, doi: 10.5114/JOGI.2018.74250.
D. Zheng et al., “Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) versus conventional in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in couples with non-severe male infertility (NSMI-ICSI): Protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial,” BMJ Open, vol. 9, no. 9, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030366.
B. Aggarwal, A. L. Evans, H. Ryan, and S. J. Martins da Silva, “IVF or ICSI for fertility preservation?,” Reproduction and Fertility, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. L1–L3, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1530/RAF-20-0059.
D. Kimelman and M. E. Pavone, “Non-invasive prenatal testing in the context of IVF and PGT-A,” Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, vol. 70, pp. 51–62, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2020.07.004.
C. Sonigo, N. Ahdad-Yata, P. Pirtea, C. Solignac, M. Grynberg, and N. Sermondade, “Do IVF culture conditions have an impact on neonatal outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis,” J Assist Reprod Genet, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 563–580, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10815-024-03020-0.
P. De Sutter, “Single embryo transfer (set) not only leads to a reduction in twinning rates after IVF/ICSI, but also improves obstetrical and perinatal outcome of singletons.,” Verh K Acad Geneeskd Belg, vol. 68, no. 5–6, pp. 319–327, 2006.
V. Tomic and J. Tomic, “Neonatal outcome of IVF singletons versus naturally conceived in women aged 35 years and over,” Arch Gynecol Obstet, vol. 284, no. 6, pp. 1411–1416, Dec. 2011, doi: 10.1007/s00404-011-1873-2.
E. Bosch, M. De Vos, and P. Humaidan, “The Future of Cryopreservation in Assisted Reproductive Technologies.,” Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), vol. 11, p. 67, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.00067.
J. Zhao, B. Xu, Q. Zhang, and Y. P. Li, “Which one has a better obstetric and perinatal outcome in singleton pregnancy, IVF/ICSI or FET?: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, vol. 14, no. 1, Aug. 2016, doi: 10.1186/s12958-016-0188-3.
D. Kimelman and M. E. Pavone, “Non-invasive prenatal testing in the context of IVF and PGT-A,” Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, vol. 70, pp. 51–62, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2020.07.004.
H. Ahmadi, L. Aghebati-Maleki, S. Rashidiani, T. Csabai, O. B. Nnaemeka, and J. Szekeres-Bartho, “Long-Term Effects of ART on the Health of the Offspring,” Int J Mol Sci, vol. 24, no. 17, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.3390/ijms241713564.
L. Lemmens, S. Kos, C. Beijer, D. D. M. Braat, W. L. D. M. Nelen, and A. M. M. Wetzels, “Techniques used for IUI: Is it time for a change?,” Human Reproduction, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1835–1845, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex223.
M. Arab-Zozani and C. O. Nastri, “Single versus double intrauterine insemination (IUI) for pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, vol. 215, pp. 75–84, Aug. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.05.025.
R. Homburg, “IUI is a better alternative than IVF as the first-line treatment of unexplained infertility,” Reprod Biomed Online, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 1–3, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.12.015.
L. Craciunas et al., “Conventional and modern markers of endometrial receptivity: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Hum Reprod Update, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 202–223, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmy044.
J. Farhi and R. Orvieto, “Cumulative clinical pregnancy rates after COH and IUI in subfertile couples,” Gynecological Endocrinology, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 500–504, Jul. 2010, doi: 10.3109/09513590903367036.
J. Y. Yip, A. Kanneganti, N. binte Ahmad, M. X. K. Lim, S. L. S. Chew, and Z. Huang, “Optimizing intrauterine insemination and spontaneous conception in women with unilateral hydrosalpinx or tubal pathology: A systematic review and narrative synthesis,” European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, vol. 286, pp. 135–144, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.05.024.
S. S. Malchau et al., “The long-term prognosis for live birth in couples initiating fertility treatments,” Human Reproduction, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 1439–1449, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex096.
M. Zhao, Q. Huan, L. Huang, L. Yang, and M. Dong, “Pregnancy outcomes of intrauterine insemination in young patients with diminished ovarian reserve: a multicenter cohort study,” Eur J Med Res, vol. 28, no. 1, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1186/s40001-023-01377-z.
A. Starosta, C. E. Gordon, and M. D. Hornstein, “Predictive factors for intrauterine insemination outcomes: a review.,” Fertil Res Pract, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 23, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1186/s40738-020-00092-1.
M. Jodar et al., “Sperm proteomic changes associated with early embryo quality after ICSI,” Reprod Biomed Online, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 698–708, May 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.01.004.
W. Jiang et al., “What sperm parameters effect blastocyst formation and quality during ICSI with severe male infertility,” Syst Biol Reprod Med, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 218–227, 2024, doi: 10.1080/19396368.2024.2375710.
M. Simopoulou et al., “Improving ICSI: A review from the spermatozoon perspective,” Syst Biol Reprod Med, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 359–371, Nov. 2016, doi: 10.1080/19396368.2016.1229365.
D. Baldini et al., “Sperm selection for icsi: Do we have a winner?,” Cells, vol. 10, no. 12, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.3390/cells10123566.
A. M. Van Peperstraten, M. L. Proctor, N. P. Johnson, and G. Philipson, “Techniques for surgical retrieval of sperm prior to intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for azoospermia,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 2, 2008, doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002807.pub3.
W. Wen, D. Zhang, X. Liu, J. Shi, and H. Cai, “Embryo development and live birth in women with one previously failed full IVF/ICSI cycle,” J Assist Reprod Genet, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1517–1525, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10815-024-03107-8.
M. Caddy et al., “PIEZO-ICSI increases fertilization rates compared with conventional ICSI in patients with poor prognosis,” J Assist Reprod Genet, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 389–398, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10815-022-02701-y.
M. Jodar et al., “Sperm proteomic changes associated with early embryo quality after ICSI,” Reprod Biomed Online, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 698–708, May 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.01.004.
S. Berntsen et al., “A systematic review and meta-analysis on the association between ICSI and chromosome abnormalities,” Hum Reprod Update, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 801–847, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmab005.
C. Lacamara, C. Ortega, S. Villa, R. Pommer, and J. E. Schwarze, “Are children born from singleton pregnancies conceived by ICSI at increased risk for congenital malformations when compared to children conceived naturally? A systematic review and meta-analysis,” J Bras Reprod Assist, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 251–259, 2017, doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20170047.
K. Abel, M. Healey, S. Finch, T. Osianlis, and B. Vollenhoven, “Associations between embryo grading and congenital malformations in IVF/ICSI pregnancies,” Reprod Biomed Online, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 981–989, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.07.035.
A. Zini, P. V. Bach, A. H. Al-Malki, and P. N. Schlegel, “Use of testicular sperm for ICSI in oligozoospermic couples: How far should we go?,” Human Reproduction, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 7–13, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew276.
M. Chen et al., “Impact of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist Pre-treatment on the Cumulative Live Birth Rate in Infertile Women With Adenomyosis Treated With IVF/ICSI: A Retrospective Cohort Study.,” Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), vol. 11, p. 318, May 2020, doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.00318.
F. Parikh et al., “Genetic counseling for pre-implantation genetic testing of monogenic disorders (PGT-M).,” Frontiers in reproductive health, vol. 5, p. 1213546, 2023, doi: 10.3389/frph.2023.1213546.
G. Porcu-Buisson et al., “Prospective multicenter observational real-world study to assess the use, efficacy and safety profile of follitropin delta during IVF/ICSI procedures (DELTA Study),” European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, vol. 293, pp. 21–26, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.12.011.
M.-Y. Wu and H.-N. Ho, “Cost and safety of assisted reproductive technologies for human immunodeficiency virus-1 discordant couples.,” World J Virol, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 142–6, May 2015, doi: 10.5501/wjv.v4.i2.142.
N. Gleicher, P. Patrizio, and A. Brivanlou, “Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy – a Castle Built on Sand,” Trends Mol Med, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 731–742, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.molmed.2020.11.009.
C. Anagnostopoulou et al., “Oocyte quality and embryo selection strategies: a review for the embryologists, by the embryologists,” Panminerva Med, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 171–184, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.23736/S0031-0808.22.04680-8.
E. T. Y. Leung et al., “Simulating nature in sperm selection for assisted reproduction,” Nat Rev Urol, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 16–36, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1038/s41585-021-00530-9.
M. E. Geisler, M. Ledwidge, M. Bermingham, M. McAuliffe, M. B. McMenamin, and J. J. Waterstone, “Intrauterine insemination—No more Mr. N.I.C.E. guy?,” European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, vol. 210, pp. 342–347, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.01.016.
M. Kanatsu-Shinohara et al., “Intracytoplasmic sperm injection induces transgenerational abnormalities in mice,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 133, no. 22, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1172/JCI170140.
S. Lara-Cerrillo, J. Ribas-Maynou, C. Rosado-Iglesias, T. Lacruz-Ruiz, J. Benet, and A. García-Peiró, “Sperm selection during ICSI treatments reduces single- but not double-strand DNA break values compared to the semen sample,” J Assist Reprod Genet, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 1187–1196, May 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10815-021-02129-w.
J. Smeenk et al., “ART in Europe, 2019: results generated from European registries by ESHRE,” Human Reproduction, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 2321–2338, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1093/humrep/dead197.
R. Muharam and F. Firman, “Lean Management Improves the Process Efficiency of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation Monitoring in IVF Treatment,” J Healthc Eng, vol. 2022, 2022, doi: 10.1155/2022/6229181.
S. H. Saravelos and T. C. Li, “Embryo transfer techniques,” Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, vol. 59, pp. 77–88, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2019.01.004.
A. Salazar, C. Diaz-García, and J. A. García–Velasco, “Third-party reproduction: a treatment that grows with societal changes,” Fertil Steril, vol. 120, no. 3P1, pp. 494–505, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.01.019.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Agata Boczar, Patryk Dryja, Jakub Jarmołowicz, Izabela Stawicka, Izabela Orzołek, Sven Solisch
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The periodical offers access to content in the Open Access system under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 60
Number of citations: 0
