To compare the karyotype of babies conceived through ICSI with that of naturally conceived babies.
Design
Prospective controlled study.
Setting
The Egyptian IVF-ET Center, Cairo, Egypt.
PATIENT(S): Four hundred and thirty babies conceived through ICSI and 430 babies conceived naturally.
INTERVENTION(S): ICSI and karyotyping.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Abnormal karyotype.
RESULT(S): Four hundred and thirty consecutive babies conceived through ICSI who were delivered in one hospital had 15 abnormal karyotypes (3.5%). Of the 15 babies, 7 were of female phenotype and 8 of male phenotype. Six babies had sex chromosome anomalies, 8 had autosomal anomalies, and 1 had combined sex chromosome and autosomal anomalies. A control group of 430 consecutive babies conceived naturally who were delivered in one hospital had no abnormal karyotype. The difference between the two groups was significant (P<.001).
CONCLUSION(S): ICSI carries a small but significant increased risk of abnormal karyotyping to the offspring. This risk appears to be equally distributed between autosomal and sex chromosome anomalies.
PMID 11476768 11476768 DOI 10.1016/s0015-0282(01)01927-6 10.1016/s0015-0282(01)01927-6
Cite this article
Aboulghar, H., Aboulghar, M., Mansour, R., Serour, G., Amin, Y., & Al-Inany, H. (2001). A prospective controlled study of karyotyping for 430 consecutive babies conceived through intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertility and sterility, 76(2), 249-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(01)01927-6
Aboulghar H, Aboulghar M, Mansour R, Serour G, Amin Y, Al-Inany H. A prospective controlled study of karyotyping for 430 consecutive babies conceived through intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(2):249-253. doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(01)01927-6
Aboulghar, H., et al. "A prospective controlled study of karyotyping for 430 consecutive babies conceived through intracytoplasmic sperm injection." Fertility and sterility, vol. 76, no. 2, 2001, pp. 249-253.
The potential risk of transmitting chromosomally abnormal spermatozoa from infertile males into oocytes through intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has prompted us to investigate the male pronuclei of tripronuclear zygotes (3PN) obtained after ICSI. To specify the type of anomalies, we used triple colour fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) with three specific probes for chromosomes X, Y and 18. From a total of 163 paternal complements of ICSI-3PN zygotes, 90 (55.2%) had Y-chromosome signals. Eighty-three of these were normal, four had the disomy XY and three were diploid. In the remaining 73 ICSI-3PN zygotes without Y-chromosome signals, the origin of paternal pronuclei was extrapolated through chromosome constitution of the first polar body. Five anomalies were found in this group of zygotes, giving a total rate of numerical chromosome aberrations for fertilizing spermatozoa of 7.4%. In contrast to ICSI, only two disomies (1.5%) were found in the control group of IVF-3PN zygotes. Compared with the incidence of chromosome anomalies between paternal-derived
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2026·Fertility and Sterility
Current strategies for the assessment and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss are discussed. This replaces the previous document, titled, "Evaluation and treatment a committee opinion," last published in 2012.
This narrative review examines the evidence for medical optimization of inflammatory conditions, vitamin deficiencies, endocrine disorders, immune dysregulation, oligo-ovulation, and luteal phase factors to improve fertility outcomes in women attempting to conceive through natural or timed intercourse. Overall, there is a paucity of data with respect to these categories among patients pursuing timed intercourse, precluding our ability to draw strong recommendations. However, there is strong evidence supporting treatment of endocrine disorders, specifically overt thyroid dysfunction and hyperprolactinemia, as well as oligo-ovulation. Conversely, treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism is not recommended. The current data are insufficient to support empiric use of antiinflammatory medications, corticosteroids, thyroid hormones, or vitamins or supplements to improve chances of pregnancy in a general infertility population.
Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) aims to restore fertility by diagnosing and treating the underlying causes of infertility. RRM is frequently promoted as an alternative to assisted reproductive technology (ART), despite uncertainty regarding its comparative effectiveness and safety. Where delayed childbearing and infertility are becoming more common, reliance on optimization of natural physiology alone may delay effective treatment and compromise reproductive outcomes. A systematic review of the current evidence comparing RRM to either ART or unassisted conception is, therefore, essential to inform clinical practice, guideline development, and shared decision-making for patients experiencing infertility. To assess the effectiveness and safety of RRM approaches, evaluated as a whole, rather than as individual components, compared with ART and medically unassisted conception in couples experiencing infertility. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and the Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine from inception to 28 November 2025. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized comparative studies evaluating reproductive and safety outcomes of RRM as a unified treatment, compared with either ART or expectant management (attempted medically unassisted conception). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We retrieved 724 records, of which 16 studies underwent full-text review. No RCTs or comparative observational studies were identified. All 16 full-text studies were excluded for an ineligible study design (no control group); most were cohort studies in which all participants underwent RRM. Ten studies reported reproductive outcomes; nine of these made claims regarding the benefits or effectiveness of RRM. None of these claims were supported by the study designs used, as the lack of a comparison group precludes reliable estimation of treatment effects. Consequently, these studies cannot provide valid estimates of RRM success rates, nor permit any meaningful inference about its effectiveness relative to unassisted conception or ART. Large-scale RCTs or prospective cohort studies reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes are required to inform evidence-based fertility guidelines. There are no comparative studies to support reliable estimates of the safety and effectiveness of RRM compared with ART or medically unassisted conception for couples experiencing infertility.