Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

ICSI from the beginning to where we are today

are we abusing ICSI?

Keating, Derek BA; Cheung, Stephanie BS; Parrella, Alessandra MS; Xie, Philip BS; Rosenwaks, Zev MD, PhD; Palermo, Gianpiero D. MD, PhD

Global Reproductive Health: Autumn 2019 - Volume 4 - Issue 3 - p e35
doi: 10.1097/GRH.0000000000000035
Brief Report

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was first described in 1992 providing couples, struggling with male factor infertility resulting in complete and unexpected fertilization failure with standard in vitro insemination, the chance to conceive a child of their own. In the 2 and a half decades since, ICSI has gained popularity worldwide and has become the most utilized insemination method at our center due to its versatility and abundance of indications. In this brief report, we examine the achievements and accomplishments of ICSI while we also question whether ICSI may be suffering abuse from overuse.

The Ronald O. Perelman and Claudia Cohen Center for Reproductive Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY

Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.

Published online 28 August 2019

Corresponding author. Address: The Ronald O. Perelman and Claudia Cohen Center for Reproductive Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, 1305 York Avenue, Suite Y720, New York, NY 10021. Tel: +646 962-3689; fax: +646 962-0344. E-mail address: (G.D. Palermo).

Received March 8, 2019

Accepted May 29, 2019

Online date: August 28, 2019

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

The development of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), first described just over 25 years ago1, marked a major milestone in the treatment of infertile couples using in vitro fertilization. In addition to being immensely successful when used for couples with a history of complete and unexplained fertilization failure, ICSI became the ultimate tool to treat patients with male factor infertility2. Since its inception, ICSI has gained worldwide popularity3, and its use for nonmale factor indications has grown considerably, leading us to wonder: are we now abusing ICSI?

From 1993 to 2018, nearly 37,976 ICSI cycles were performed at our center. While the large majority was with ejaculated spermatozoa, 9.8% of ICSI treatments utilized either fresh or frozen surgically retrieved spermatozoa. The proportion of ICSI use in comparison to standard in vitro insemination has risen dramatically over this period, and in 2018 it accounted for over 90% of all insemination cycles done at Weill Cornell Medicine. This increase mirrors the rising trend seen worldwide4, which includes the increased use of ICSI in the fertilization of thawed and donor oocytes, as well as in preimplantation genetic testing5. Moreover, at our center, ICSI is used when there is questionable maturity of the female gamete and low oocyte yield at retrieval. It also remains the best treatment option for couples experiencing all types of male factor infertility.

Ejaculated spermatozoa have been utilized in 33,856 cycles performed at our center, with 28,171 (83.3%) treatments utilizing spermatozoa with compromised characteristics and 5685 (16.8%) using semen samples with normal parameters as defined by 2010 WHO criteria6. Among the population treated by ICSI using ejaculated spermatozoa with abnormal semen parameters are patients who suffer from severe oligozoospermia (≤1 million/mL) and cryptozoospermia (no sperm seen during the initial analysis of the sample). Severe oligozoospermia was a factor in 2260 ICSI cycles that resulted in a 62.6% fertilization rate and a clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) of 46.1%. Cryptozoospermia accounted for 354 ICSI cycles, which yielded a fertilization rate of 54.9% and a CPR of 45.2%. The success seen with these patients underscores the important role of ICSI insemination in cases of severe male factor infertility.

A total of 3075 ICSI treatments have been performed on couples in which the male partner has either obstructive azoospermia (OA) or nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA). Retrieving spermatozoa from patients with OA involves microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration (MESA), in which gametes displaying adequate concentration and motility are aspirated directly from the epididymis. In rare cases in which the epididymal approach is not feasible, sperm cells are retrieved directly from the seminiferous tubule. At our center, there have been 592 cycles performed with MESA samples for congenital causes and 609 cycles performed with MESA samples for acquired causes of OA. Patients with congenital OA have had a better fertilization rate (72.1% vs. 70.2%; P=0.01) and CPR (53.2% vs 43.2%; P<0.001). This includes both fresh and frozen epididymal sperm. Fertilization rates using fresh and frozen epididymal samples are nearly identical, but there is a significantly greater CPR when cycles utilize fresh epididymal sperm followed by cryopreserved sperm in this chronological series (60.1% vs. 44.5%; P<0.00001).

Patients with NOA undergo testicular sperm extraction (TESE), which yields spermatozoa in 61.7% of procedures performed at our center. Sperm taken directly from the testicle has been used in 1877 cycles. Despite having low concentration and motility, as well as atypical morphology, TESE sperm has been used successfully in these cases. However, testicular spermatozoa perform better in cases of OA (cases that cannot benefit from MESA) than NOA in terms of the fertilization rate (65.9% vs. 48.5%; P=0.0001) and CPR (42.8% vs. 36.1%; P=0.05). TESE cycles utilizing fresh spermatozoa outperform their frozen counterparts in terms of generating a pregnancy (P<0.05). Using next-generation sequencing and fluorescent in situ hybridization, our team has even revisited the safety of TESE and found that testicular spermatozoa have less aneuploidy than ejaculated specimens and are just as safe to use7.

Assays such as the sperm chromatin structure assay and terminal deoxynucleotidyl dUTP transferase nick end labeling (TUNEL), which measure the sperm chromatin fragmentation (SCF) of the male gamete, are now commonly used to thoroughly evaluate a man’s fertility and ability to father a child. Men with elevated ejaculate SCF have poor clinical outcomes as compared with men without compromised sperm chromatin integrity. It has been proposed that men with high SCF in their ejaculate undergo surgical retrieval of spermatozoa directly from the seminiferous tubule8,9 reporting enhanced implantation rate and CPRs (P<0.05).

In a new and more conservative approach, we have processed ejaculated samples using a microfluidic device that drastically reduces SCF of the final sample (P<0.0001), which is used for ICSI insemination. Our initial findings are encouraging, demonstrating an increase in the generation of euploid embryos and pregnancies (P<0.0001) as compared with ICSI cycles using conventional sperm selection methods.

We are constantly testing the potential and limits of this versatile and sophisticated technique. ICSI has evolved from a tool used for couples struggling with male infertility and unexpected and complete fertilization failure into a treatment utilized for the majority of our assisted reproductive technology population. The quest to select the best spermatozoon will always be vital, particularly as we gain more insight into male fertility through the study of its genome and epigenome.

While the reliability of this technique is undeniable, its use should be applied judiciously while monitoring its safety to allow ICSI to remain a fundamental pillar in the treatment of infertility.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no financial conflict of interest with regard to the content of this report.

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Palermo GD, Cohen J, Alikani M, et al. Development and implementation of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Reprod Fertil Dev 1995;7:211–7; discussion 7–8.
2. Palermo GD, O’Neill CL, Chow S, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: state of the art in humans. Reproduction 2017;154:F93–F110.
3. Rosenwaks Z, Pereira N. The pioneering of intracytoplasmic sperm injection: historical perspectives. Reproduction 2017;154:F71–F77.
4. Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Chambers GM, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology: world report on assisted reproductive technology, 2011. Fertil Steril 2018;110:1067–80.
5. Boulet SL, Mehta A, Kissin DM, et al. Trends in use of and reproductive outcomes associated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2015;70:325–6.
6. 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.
7. Cheung S, Schlegel PN, Rosenwaks Z, et al. Revisiting aneuploidy profile of surgically retrieved spermatozoa by whole exome sequencing molecular karyotype. PLoS One 2019;14:e0210079.
8. Greco E, Scarselli F, Iacobelli M, et al. Efficient treatment of infertility due to sperm DNA damage by ICSI with testicular spermatozoa. Hum Reprod 2005;20:226–30.
9. O’Neill CL, Parrella A, Keating D, et al. A treatment algorithm for couples with unexplained infertility based on sperm chromatin assessment. J Assist Reprod Genet 2018;35:1911–7.

ICSI; male factor infertility; assisted reproductive technology

Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer on behalf of the International Federation of Fertility Societies. All rights reserved.