ISSN 1518 0557
Physiological ICSI (PICSI) vs. conventional ICSI in couples with male factor: A systematic review

2018; 22
Georgina Avalos-Durán, Ana María Emilia Cañedo-Del Ángel, Juana Rivero-Murillo, Jaime Enoc Zambrano-Guerrero, Esperanza Carballo-Mondragón, Miguel Ángel Checa-Vizcaíno
JBRA Assist. Reprod. 2018; 22 (2):139-147

Received May 22, 2017
Accepted January 31, 2018
Abstract

Objectives: To determine the efficacy of the physiological ICSI technique (PICSI) vs. conventional ICSI in the prognosis of couples, 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.


This Article

doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20180027

Full Text (HTML)
Full Text (PDF)

Classifications

Review

How to cite

How to cite this article

Send this article

Send this article by mail

Access statistics

Last 30 days: 34
All time: 3777


Home

 
Copyright 2026 - JBRA Assisted Reproduction - All rights reserved.
Support and Maintenance by Eniosoft