Perinatal outcomes using ejaculate versus surgical sperm retrieval in patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection for male infertility – A retrospective analysis of 628 cycles

Abstract

Background: Men with azoospermia undergoing a surgical sperm retrieval are anxious about the well-being of the baby. It is therefore important to study the perinatal outcomes in this group compared to the ejaculate sample group. Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the perinatal outcomes between ejaculate and surgical sperm retrieval (SSR) groups in couples undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection for male factor. Study Setting and Design: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a university-level infertility unit. Materials and Methods: It is a retrospective cohort study analysis of 628 assisted reproductive technique (ART) cycles with male factor and combined (male and female) factor infertility over a period of 5 years (January 2011–December 2015). All women who underwent a fresh embryo ART cycle were followed up. The study population included the ejaculate and SSR groups. The perinatal outcomes of these two groups were compared. The congenital anomaly risks among the two groups were also analyzed. Statistical Analysis: Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test and Logistic regression Results: A total of 628 ART cycles were included in the current study, of which 478 cycles used ejaculate sperm, while SSR was done in 150 cycles. The analysis was restricted to singletons, and the risk of preterm birth was 22.9% in the ejaculate group, 5.9% in the epididymal group, and 12% in the testicular group (epididymal vs. ejaculate odds ratio [OR], 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.02–1.66) (testicular vs. ejaculate OR, 0.46; 95% CI: 0.12–1.65). The risk of low birth weight was 23.7% in the ejaculate group, 11.8% in the epididymal group, and 20.0% in the testicular group (epididymal vs. ejaculate OR, 0.42; 95% CI: 0.09–1.9) (testicular vs. ejaculate OR, 0.80; 95% CI: 0.27–2.3). The incidence of congenital anomalies was 7.3% in the ejaculate group, 0 in the epididymal group, and 3.5% in the testicular group (epididymal vs. ejaculate OR, 0.28; 95% CI: 0.01–5.2) (testicular vs. ejaculate OR, 0.63; 95% CI: 0.10–3.7) which was not significantly different. Conclusion: The current study showed no significant differences in the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes in the ejaculate group versus the surgically retrieved sperm groups.

Keywords

• congenital anomaly
• ejaculate
• perinatal outcomes
• surgical sperm retrieval