A Retrospective Comparison of Pregnancy Outcome Following Conventional Oocyte Insemination vs Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection for Isolated Abnormalities in Sperm Morphology Using Strict Criteria
Abstract
Initial in vitro fertilization (IVF)-embryo transfer studies found poor fertilization and pregnancy rates following conventional fertilization of oocytes when using sperm with <4% normal morphology using strict criteria. Some consider today that sperm with only < or =5% normal morphology using strict criteria are associated with infertility. However, other studies have disputed the diagnostic potential of low strict morphology in identifying subnormal male fertility. Based on the original studies most IVF centers perform intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) when the sperm shows low morphology using strict criteria to allow selection of normal sperm. However, ICSI adds extra time for the embryologist and extra expense for the infertile couple. The present study retrospectively compared fertilization, pregnancy, and implantation rates according to the 2 methods of oocyte fertilization with sperm having normal morphology using strict criteria of < or =5% in women < or =39 years. All fresh embryo transfers were performed on day 3. There was a significantly higher fertilization rate with ICSI. However, there were significantly higher clinical and delivered pregnancy and implantation rates following conventional insemination. The rate of canceled transfers due to no available embryo was 1.9% with conventional insemination vs 1.5% for ICSI in women with adequate egg reserve. Hopefully, this retrospective study will generate interest in a prospective study.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Recent studies have called into question the predictive value of sperm morphology for pregnancy and the need to move directly to ICSI in those with teratozoospermia.
“Recent studies have called into question the predictive value of sperm morphology for pregnancy and the need to move directly to ICSI in those with teratozoospermia (Matorras et al., 1995;Karabinus & Gelety, 1997;Check et al., 2007;Deveneau et al., 2014).”
From Isolated abnormal strict morphology is not a contraindication for intrauterine insemination (2015) · cites this paper as Check et al., 2007
This 2007 study had several factors of bias: it concerned a small series (58 IVF cycles leading to 18 transfers were analysed), the criteria for deciding on ICSI or IVF were not given, nor were the exclusion criteria based on the results of female factors.
“Nevertheless, this study had several factors of bias: it concerned a small series (58 IVF cycles leading to 18 transfers were analysed, the criteria for deciding on ICSI or IVF were not given, nor were the exclusion criteria based on the results of female factors).”
From Recommendations for Human Sperm Morphology Assessment in 2025: An Expert Review From the French BLEFCO Group (2026) · cites this paper as [107]
Three studies reported significantly higher fertilisation rates after ICSI than after IVF.
“Lastly, three studies reported significantly higher fertilisation rates after ICSI than after IVF [97, 107, 108].”
From Recommendations for Human Sperm Morphology Assessment in 2025: An Expert Review From the French BLEFCO Group (2026) · cites this paper as [107]
A retrospective study in 2007 carried out over 7 years reported higher pregnancy rates with IVF than with ICSI (51.4% vs 33.6%, p = 0.05).
“Conversely, a retrospective study in 2007 carried out over a long period of time (7 years) reported higher pregnancy rates with IVF than with ICSI (51.4% vs. 33.6%, p = 0.05) [107].”
From Recommendations for Human Sperm Morphology Assessment in 2025: An Expert Review From the French BLEFCO Group (2026) · cites this paper as [107]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Isolated abnormal strict morphology is not a contraindication for intrauterine insemination
Lockwood, G. M., Deveneau, N. E., Shridharani, A. N., Strawn, E. Y., & Sandlow, J. I. (2015) · Andrology · doi:10.1111/andr.12098 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Li, M., Ma, C., Xue, X., Zhao, W., Zhang, S., & Shi, J. (2016) · Gynecological Endocrinology · doi:10.3109/09513590.2015.1092514 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Gatimel, N., Barbotin, A., Mery, L., Beauvillard, D., Bendayan, M., Boursier, A., Boueilh, T., Pereira, B., Chammas, J., Jacquet, J., et al. (2026) · Andrology · doi:10.1111/andr.70134 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Check, J. H., Bollendorf, A., Wilson, C., Summers‐Chase, D., Horwath, D., & Yuan, W.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Corresponding author
- Check, Jerome H.
- Venue
- Journal of Andrology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-07-08
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 607-612
- ISSN
- 0196-3635 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-4640
- OpenAlex
- W2075911082
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 3.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Andrology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Sperm and Testicular Function
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Biology and Fertility
- Keywords
- intracytoplasmic sperm injection, sperm morphology, male infertility, fertilization rate, pregnancy rate, implantation rate, embryo transfer, oocyte fertilization
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Embryo Transfer, Female, Fertilization, Fertilization in Vitro, Humans, Male, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Retrospective Studies, Spermatozoa, Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review