IVF/ICSI/ART kids and side effects

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm doing IVF (with ICSI) and I keep seeing all these things about children conceived through ART or with ICSI as being at higher risk for genetic syndromes, some of which sound really scary (higher risks of childhood cancer!??!)

Did any of you see/hear about this? Anyone's RE talk to them about this? Or do you know any children conceived through ART that do have a syndrome related to ART? I'm trying to figure out what is real and what is hype. Thanks!

I looked into this pretty extensively myself. There does seem to be a slight increased incidence of problems (more so in boys). Its not a huge incidence though. The main thing is, they don't necessarily think its the ART, ICSI, etc, but that they are using sperm that never would have been able to fertilize an egg if not for these procedures. So its likely due to use of sub-par sperm. No one has been able to prove this yet; just a theory. Personally, I don't think the risk is all that great, and its the difference between having or not having a child.

OP, syndromes happen in nature with or without intervention. It's a genetic coin toss. If this is the only way you can conceive a child, do not let obscure musings derail your efforts.

PP, that is a gross generalization. Sub-par sperm won't fertilize an egg. Besides, sperm issues may be related to count rather than morphology or motility.

Its not a gross generalization. I've read the scientific articles. Its part of the "discussion" section, though you probably don't know what that is.

Bottom line, there's a small increased chance of a few problems (such as infertility-which may not be a surprise-hypospadia, etc). Can't pinpoint why there is a slightly higher rate, but its not a whole lot higher than non-ART children. If you don't have a strong science background, then make an appointment with your RE to discuss the facts.

That is why we are so glad we have 'experts' like you to inform us.

Go back to your hole.

I also researched this before using ICSI and came to the same conclusion. Very small increased risk.

No, you slither back. Nasty person. No one needs to hear your condescension.
We are also doing ICSI. You are not the only person to do this. A lot of people don't have scientific backgrounds and have genuine concerns at a very stressful time in their lives.
Insulting people on forums is no way to get your point across. Understand that first. Or remain quiet.

Nasty? Condescension? Projecting much?

You guys do realize that there are multiple posters here, so if you are trying to insult a specific one, you need to be more clear.
Though I don't understand what all the nastiness is about anyways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm doing IVF (with ICSI) and I keep seeing all these things about children conceived through ART or with ICSI as being at higher risk for genetic syndromes, some of which sound really scary (higher risks of childhood cancer!??!)

Did any of you see/hear about this? Anyone's RE talk to them about this? Or do you know any children conceived through ART that do have a syndrome related to ART? I'm trying to figure out what is real and what is hype. Thanks!

I looked into this pretty extensively myself. There does seem to be a slight increased incidence of problems (more so in boys). Its not a huge incidence though. The main thing is, they don't necessarily think its the ART, ICSI, etc, but that they are using sperm that never would have been able to fertilize an egg if not for these procedures. So its likely due to use of sub-par sperm. No one has been able to prove this yet; just a theory. Personally, I don't think the risk is all that great, and its the difference between having or not having a child.

OP, syndromes happen in nature with or without intervention. It's a genetic coin toss. If this is the only way you can conceive a child, do not let obscure musings derail your efforts.

PP, that is a gross generalization. Sub-par sperm won't fertilize an egg. Besides, sperm issues may be related to count rather than morphology or motility.

Its not a gross generalization. I've read the scientific articles. Its part of the "discussion" section, though you probably don't know what that is.

Bottom line, there's a small increased chance of a few problems (such as infertility-which may not be a surprise-hypospadia, etc). Can't pinpoint why there is a slightly higher rate, but its not a whole lot higher than non-ART children. If you don't have a strong science background, then make an appointment with your RE to discuss the facts.

That is why we are so glad we have 'experts' like you to inform us.

LOL, reading some journal articles does not make me an expert. Where did you get that?

[Anonymous]

The small increased risks were discussed by our RE, but the RE highly recommended ICSI because it was unlikely that our IVF would have been successful without it. I trusted my RE and have a healthy baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm doing IVF (with ICSI) and I keep seeing all these things about children conceived through ART or with ICSI as being at higher risk for genetic syndromes, some of which sound really scary (higher risks of childhood cancer!??!)

Did any of you see/hear about this? Anyone's RE talk to them about this? Or do you know any children conceived through ART that do have a syndrome related to ART? I'm trying to figure out what is real and what is hype. Thanks!

I looked into this pretty extensively myself. There does seem to be a slight increased incidence of problems (more so in boys). Its not a huge incidence though. The main thing is, they don't necessarily think its the ART, ICSI, etc, but that they are using sperm that never would have been able to fertilize an egg if not for these procedures. So its likely due to use of sub-par sperm. No one has been able to prove this yet; just a theory. Personally, I don't think the risk is all that great, and its the difference between having or not having a child.

OP, syndromes happen in nature with or without intervention. It's a genetic coin toss. If this is the only way you can conceive a child, do not let obscure musings derail your efforts.

PP, that is a gross generalization. Sub-par sperm won't fertilize an egg. Besides, sperm issues may be related to count rather than morphology or motility.

We did IVF with ICSI. Given DHs practically zero sperm count, it was strongly recommended we skip over IUI and go straight to IVF w/ ICSI. We may have been warned of the increased risk of birth defects due to use of ICSI but I have no recollection of being educated about genetic syndromes. Our kids are now 4 and 2. They're both just fine. Of the dozen folks we know who used ART to conceive, no one has any ART related syndromes that we are aware of.

To the PP who talked about sub-par sperm not fertilizing an egg. The whole reason ICSI exists is so that sub-par sperm can be used to fertilize an egg. DH consistently had ONE normal sperm, all else was low to no motility and abnormal morphology.

OP, for our situation it was worth the risks.

[Anonymous]

My DH has MFI and his three sisters all had fertility issues or married someone with fertility issues. Of the 5 grandchildren in the family, 3 are IVF babies. All three are healthy. One does have an genetic eye issue, but he had just as much a chance of having it if he was conceived sans IVF. I am pregnant with IVF twins now. We did ICSI. Yes, there is a slight increased risk of defects, but I did want children. I think this is a really personal choice, with no right or wrong, just what is best for you.