Conventional IVF as a laboratory strategy to rescue fertility potential in severe poor responder patients: the impact of reproductive aging

References

• Lashen H, Ledger W, Lopez-Bernal A, Barlow D. Poor responders to ovulation induction: is proceeding to in-vitro fertilization worthwhile? Hum Reprod 1999;14:964–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oudendijk JF, Yarde F, Eijkemans MJC, et al. The poor responder in IVF: is the prognosis always poor? A systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2012;18:1–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Rafael Z, Bider D, Dan U, et al. Combined gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist/human menopausal gonadotropin therapy (GnRH-a/hMG) in normal, high, and poor responders to hMG. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1991;8:33–6
   Google Scholar
• Surrey ES, Schoolcraft WB. Evaluating strategies for improving ovarian response of the poor responder undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Fertil Steril 2000;73:667–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarlatzis BC, Zepiridis L, Grimbizis G, Bontis J. Clinical management of low ovarian response to stimulation for IVF: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2003;9:61–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BCJM, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of “poor response” to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1616–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oehninger S, Gosden RG. Should ICSI be the treatment of choice for all cases of in-vitro conception? No, not in light of the scientific data. Hum Reprod 2002;17:2237–42
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van der Westerlaken L, Helmerhorst F, Dieben S, Naaktgeboren N. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection as a treatment for unexplained total fertilization failure or low fertilization after conventional in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2005;83:612–7
   Google Scholar
• Moreno C, Ruiz A, Simón C, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection as a routine indication in low responder patients. Hum Reprod 1998;13:2126–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gozlan I, Dor A, Farber B, et al. Comparing intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization in patients with single oocyte retrieval. Fertil Steril 2007;87:515–8
   Google Scholar
• Borini A, Gambardella A, Bonu MA, et al. Comparison of IVF and ICSI when only few oocytes are available for insemination. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;19:270–5
   Google Scholar
• Cooper TG, Noonan E, von Eckardstein S, et al. World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Hum Reprod Update 2010;16:231–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Artini PG, Fasciani A, Monti M, et al. Changes in vascular endothelial growth factor levels and the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in women enrolled in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril 1998;70:560–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borini A, Sciajno R, Bianchi V, et al. Clinical outcome of oocyte cryopreservation after slow cooling with a protocol utilizing a high sucrose concentration. Hum Reprod 2006;21:512–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet 1992;340:17–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne D, Flaherty SP, Jeffrey R, et al. Successful treatment of severe male factor infertility in 100 consecutive cycles using intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1994;9:2051–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Calderón G, Belil I, Aran B, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in-vitro fertilization: first results. Hum Reprod 1995;10:2835–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection and conventional in vitro fertilization for sibling oocytes in cases of unexplained infertility and borderline semen. J Assist Reprod Genet 1996;13:38–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khamsi F, Yavas Y, Roberge S, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection increased fertilization and good-quality embryo formation in patients with non-male factor indications for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 2001;75:342–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staessen C, Camus M, Clasen K, et al. Conventional in-vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in sibling oocytes from couples with tubal infertility and normozoospermic semen. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2474–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim HH, Bundorf MK, Behr B, McCallum SW. Use and outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection for non-male factor infertility. Fertil Steril 2007;88:622–8
   Google Scholar
• Fang C, Tang J, Huang R, et al. Comparison of IVF outcomes using conventional insemination and ICSI in ovarian cycles in which only one or two oocytes are obtained. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2012;41:650–6
   Google Scholar
• Xi Q, Zhu L, Hu J, et al. Should few retrieved oocytes be as an indication for intracytoplasmic sperm injection? J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2012;13:717–22
   Google Scholar
• Ikawa M, Inoue N, Benham AM, Okabe M. Fertilization: a sperm’s journey to and interaction with the oocyte. J Clin Invest 2010;120:984–94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu F, Qiu Y, Zou Y, et al. Use of zona pellucida-bound sperm for intracytoplasmic sperm injection produces higher embryo quality and implantation than conventional intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 2011;95:815–8
   Google Scholar
• Kunathikom S, Makemaharn O, Suksompong S, Laokirkkiat P. Chromosomal analysis of “failed-fertilized” human oocytes resulting from in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. J Med Assoc Thai 2001;84:532–8
   Google Scholar
• Miller JE, Smith TT. The effect of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and semen parameters on blastocyst development in vitro. Hum Reprod 2001;16:918–24
   Google Scholar
• Chan AW, Luetjens CM, Dominko T, et al. Foreign DNA transmission by ICSI: injection of spermatozoa bound with exogenous DNA results in embryonic GFP expression and live rhesus monkey births. Mol Hum Reprod 2000;6:26–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozil J-P, Banrezes B, Tóth S, et al. Ca2+ oscillatory pattern in fertilized mouse eggs affects gene expression and development to term. Dev Biol 2006;300:534–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swann K, Lai FA. PLCζ and the initiation of Ca(2+) oscillations in fertilizing mammalian eggs. Cell Calcium 2013;53:55–62
   Google Scholar
• Tesarik J, Sousa M. Comparison of Ca2+ responses in human oocytes fertilized by subzonal insemination and by intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 1994;62:1197–204
   Google Scholar
• Ciapa B, Arnoult C. Could modifications of signalling pathways activated after ICSI induce a potential risk of epigenetic defects? Int J Dev Biol 2011;55:143–52
   Google Scholar
• Fishel S, Timson J, Lisi F, Rinaldi L. Evaluation of 225 patients undergoing subzonal insemination for the procurement of fertilization in vitro. Fertil Steril 1992;57:840–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palermo G, Joris H, Derde MP, et al. Sperm characteristics and outcome of human assisted fertilization by subzonal insemination and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 1993;59:826–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velde HV de, Nagy ZP, Joris H, et al. Effects of different hyaluronidase concentrations and mechanical procedures for cumulus cell removal on the outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1997;12:2246–50
   Google Scholar
• Tatone C. Oocyte senescence: a firm link to age-related female subfertility. Gynecol Endocrinol 2008;24:59–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tatone C, Amicarelli F, Carbone MC, et al. Cellular and molecular aspects of ovarian follicle ageing. Hum Reprod Update 2008;14:131–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carbone MC, Tatone C. Alterations in the protein kinase C signaling activated by a parthenogenetic agent in oocytes from reproductively old mice. Mol Reprod Dev 2009;76:122–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar