Comparison of sperm preparation methods: effect on chromatin and morphology recovery rates and their consequences on the clinical outcome after in vitro fertilization embryo transfer
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of swim‐up, PureSperm® gradient centrifugation and glass–wool filtration methods for semen preparation and to assess the possible enhancement of the quality of the subpopulation of spermatozoa in terms of sperm concentration, morphology and chromatin condensation. Moreover, to determine the effect of this semen processing technique on the clinical outcome after in vitro fertilization embryo transfer (IVF‐ET).A total of 180 semen samples of patients’ husbands who were undergoing IVF therapy were prepared by swim‐up (G1, n= 60), PureSperm® gradient centrifugation (G2, n=60) or glass–wool (G3, n=60) methods. Chromatin condensation was assessed by Chromomycin (CMA3), whereas sperm morphology was evaluated according to strict criteria. In all three semen processing methods, the percentage of chromatin condensed and morphologically normal spermatozoa was higher after semen processing in comparison with native semen samples. The proportion of normal chromatin condensed spermatozoa prepared in glass–wool filtration was significantly higher than that in swim‐up (G.I, p=0.02) or PureSperm® (G.II, p=0.001). In addition semen processing with PureSperm® yields significantly a higher percentage of morphologically normal spermatozoa than swim‐up (p < 0.001) or glass–wool method (p < 0.002). However, the fertilization, implantation and pregnancy rates, in turn were similar in all semen preparation methods.In conclusion, PureSperm® gradient centrifugation yields a higher percentage of morphologically normal spermatozoa than shown in traditional swim‐up or glass–wool filtration. However, the percentage of chromatin condensed spermatozoa was significantly higher after semen processing via glass–wool in comparison with the other two methods.Nevertheless, there were no significant difference in the fertilization, implantation and pregnancy rates of sperm prepared by means of swim‐up, PureSperm® or glass–wool filtration.Therefore, glass–wool filtration should be recommended as the first choice for semen preparation for Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) technique as the natural selection is bypassed. Whereas, swim‐up and PureSperm should be used for semen processing in IVF programme.
