IVF/ICSI/ART kids and side effects

[Anonymous]

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!

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

PP again. As long as we're on the topic, assisted hatching has an increased risk of identical twins.

[Anonymous]

HI OP. I looked at this extensively when going through IVF. I refused to do ICSI for the first IVF cycle because of disorders I read about (hypospadia being one of them). In another cycle I refused to use Lupron because of all the negetive stuff surrounding it.

In the end, I opted for ICSI with my second full IVF cycle at the insistence of my REs. I just sort of "gave up" trying to control the situation.

I think it is good to do thorough research and read up on stuff like this because a lot of times your docs are not going to mention it. (they never mentioned OHSS to me before starting IVF and then I ended up having a mild case of it during hte first round. I never understood why it wasnt mentioned as a frequent and likely side effect of treatment).

Also, even though I ended up doing ICSI in the end, I still think you should be your own advocate and don't do anything you dont want to.

[Anonymous]

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.

There are studies indicating that when ICSI is used due to lower sperm quality, yes, there is an increased chance of certain health problems. When it's used with normal sperm (e.g. for IVF+PGS cycle) there is no such correlation.

[Anonymous]

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.

I'm sure it made you an expert. In scaring anonymous users on the itnernet.

[Anonymous]

Who am I scaring? I am the poster you are referring to. After gathering all of the information, I found a SMALL increased incidence in problems using ICSI. It was so small that it influenced my decision to GO FORWARD with the ICSI. Nobody should be scared off due by this, especially since there is no way to pinpoint the cause to ART. But the OP asked, and she was informed. The purpose of this forum.

I already said most of this previously. Please read the posts before commenting.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

The OP asked if it was real or hype. The question was answered. There is a correlation, but only a small one. Yes, correlation does not imply causation, but since there is no way to do a true scientific study, with experimental and control groups, it is all we have right now.

Really, the only other responses at this point should be to answer OP's questions. Not from people admitting that they didn't take the time to read the research. They have nothing to offer to this post.

[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.

Go back to your hole.

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Hi OP. I researched this question (along with a gazillion other similar unknowns and possible risks) and discussed it with our RE.

In the scheme of things we decided the risks of ICSI creating a problem were pretty inifinitesimal, and certainly less than many of the other risks we were knowingly taking (AMA, all the fertility drugs, later - carrying a twin pregnancy, etc...)

ICSI was highly recommended for us so we trusted our RE's advice.

We have healthy kids with no discernible concerns (at age 4) that we can see thus far.

There are sooo many leaps of faith in the infertility world, and often I think there is too much information available. We can make ourselves crazy about 100 things we wouldn't even think about if getting pregnant weren't such an ordeal. But pregnancy - no matter how you get there - can be a pretty high risk undertaking in the best of circumstances. We just get given a lot more reason for anxiety!

Good luck!