4.4 Article

Congenital anomalies and other perinatal outcomes in ICSI vs. naturally conceived pregnancies: a comparative study

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
Volume 26, Issue 7, Pages 377-381

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-009-9329-3

Keywords

ICSI; Natural conception; Pregnancy; Congenital anomalies; Perinatal outcome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) procedures have become accepted worldwide and their effect on society is well-known. However, the full extent of the possible complications of these procedures on maternal and neonatal outcome is still unclear. Materials and Methods This is a retrospective case controlled study from January 2003 to December 2007 which compared 253 women that had conceived using assisted reproduction (ICSI) and delivered 327 children at our center (study group) with a matched group of 349 women who naturally conceived and delivered 354 children at Abha General Hospital (control group) during the same period. The obstetrical and neonatal characteristics of the women and their children were assessed to determine any significant differences between the groups. Results The number of gestations per pregnancy (1.34 +/- 0.57 vs. 1.01 +/- 0.12) and number of children born per woman (1.28 +/- 0.49 vs. 1.01 +/- 0.12) was significantly higher in the ICSI group (p < 0.001). In addition, the gestational age at delivery (37.23 +/- 2.68 vs. 38.56 +/- 1.89) was significantly shorter in the ICSI group (p < 0.001) and this led to an increased number of obstetrical interventions, as well as the incidence of cesarean deliveries. Examination of the new-born children revealed similar incidence of congenital anomalies in both groups. Conclusion ICSI conceived pregnancies were characterized by an increased number of gestations and live-born, and there was no increase in congenital malformations compared to naturally conceived pregnancies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available