Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Alastair G Sutcliffe a Royal
Free and University College Medical School, Department of Child Health,
Royal Free Campus, London NW3 2PF, b Centre for
Assisted Reproduction (CARE), Park Hospital, Nottingham NG5 8RX, c Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St
Bartholomew's and Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Royal
London Hospital, London E1 1BB, d Department of
Reproductive Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester M13
0JH
Correspondence to: Dr Sutcliffe icsi{at}rfhsm.ac.uk
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection is often successful for
treatment of male infertility; over 20 000 children have been born as
a result.1 This bypassing of natural barriers to sperm
selection has raised concerns about the children
conceived.2 We report a population control study of
children born in the United Kingdom as a result of this treatment.
Children between 12 and 24 months old who had been singleton
births were identified from a list of couples who had received the
treatment and their parents were invited to participate; 123 of 137 families (90%) agreed. Control children, conceived naturally, were
recruited from associated nurseries (105/123) or were social peers of
cases (18/123). Altogether, 123 children born after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (study children) and 123 control children were seen.
Children were matched for social class, maternal educational level,
region, sex, and race but not maternal age. Multiple births were
excluded to avoid confounding factors. Primary outcome measures were
developmental scoring on the Griffiths scales of mental
development3 and rates of congenital abnormalities. The
Griffiths scales are an objective method of assessing development which
uses five subscales. All subscales have a normal mean score of 100 (75-125, SD 1).
Clinical data obtained included date and type of delivery, birth
weight, gestation, resuscitation required, duration and reason for
admission to neonatal unit (if admitted), and details of ventilatory support. Congenital abnormalities were classed according to the ICD-10
(international classification of diseases, 10th revision). Sociodemographic data obtained included date of birth, sex, and age in
months. Information obtained about parents included date of birth,
social class, occupation, smoking status, alcohol intake, marital or
support status (that is, the number of full time carers in the
household), type of housing, education, race, and mother's gravidity
and parity.
One observer (AGS) assessed all children. The mean age at assessment
was 17.5 months. There was similarity across sociodemographic factors,
although mothers of study children were more likely to be 35 years or
older (P<0.001). Study children were more likely to have been born
earlier (38.83 weeks v 39.59, P<0.01), to be of lower
mean birth weight (3167 g v 3365 g, P<0.01), and to
have been born by caesarean section (44 v 26, P<0.05),
but neonatal admission rates were similar (P>0.7).
The mean mental age (17.3 months for study infants v
17.6 for controls) and the mean Griffiths quotient (101 for
study infants v 102 for controls) were comparable
(table). Difference in the eye-hand coordination subquotient persisted
despite adjustment for gestation (P<0.05). However, scores on all
subscales were normal for control and study children.
The number of study infants with minor congenital anomalies (14) was
higher in comparison with controls (9), but not significantly. The
number of children with a major congenital malformation was comparable
(6 study v 5 controls). Malformations found in the study
infants were scrotal fusion, undescended testis, exomphalos, congenital
cataract, and congenital hip dislocation. In the control group
malformations were buphthalmos, horseshoe kidney, cleft lip, cleft
palate, and ventricular septal defect.
In our study a narrow age range was used to match cases and
controls for assessment with the revised Griffiths scales (standardised on the UK population), which have a 91.3% power to detect a five point
difference between groups. Children conceived naturally were chosen as
controls in preference to another in vitro fertilisation group as being
a more appropriate standard by which to test normal development.
Control children were not matched by parity, history of infertility, or
mode of delivery, which may be predictive of adverse outcome in later
childhood. Our 90% follow up compares favourably with 25% in a
Belgian study.4 Spontaneous abortions during the study
period were not documented, possibly distorting the rates of congenital abnormality.
The difference in eye-hand coordination subscales is unlikely to be of
functional significance; scores in both groups were normal. Congenital
abnormality rates were consistent with national data in the United
Kingdom (overall rate 5%)5 but a larger study might
identify a true increase in minor anomalies.
We are recruiting further children, and follow up at 5 years of age is planned.
![]()
Subjects, methods, and results
Top
Subjects, methods, and results
Comment
References
![]()
Comment
Top
Subjects, methods, and results
Comment
References
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We would like to thank the following participating centres: Assisted Conception Unit, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee; BUPA Roding Hospital, Essex; Holly House Hospital, Essex; Churchill Clinic London; Lister Hospital, London; Midland Fertility Services, Birmingham; Manchester Fertility Services, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester; NURTURE, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nottingham University; CARE, Park Hospital, Nottingham; General Infirmary at Leeds; Assisted Conception Unit, St James's Hospital, Leeds; and London Women's Clinic, Assisted Conception Unit, University College Hospital. Children from the following nurseries acted as controls: Tiger Tots (Aberdeen); University of Nottingham Crèche; Queen's Medical Centre Nottingham Crèche; the Surgery, 2 Ritchie Street, London; and the Mouse Hole Nursery (Middlesex Hospital Nursery). We are grateful for the advice of Dr Kerryn Saunders, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Contributors: All authors participated in the design of this study, recruitment of patients, analysis of data, and writing of the paper. AGS assessed each child and is guarantor for the study. JL undertook the statistical analysis. BT advised on epidemiological aspects of the design of the study. ST, JGG, and BAL arranged the recruitment of patients and assisted with ethical approval and raising funding.
Funding: The study was supported by a grant from the Sir Halley Stewart Trust Fund. Additional grants were received from the Manchester Fertility Services Trust, the Burgess Bequest, Cook UK, Serono UK, Organon Laboratories, Ferring UK, IBSA Biochemique, and Smith Industries.
Competing interests: None declared.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
(Accepted 9 November 1998)
Read all Rapid Responses