Cargando…

Comparative Study of Sperm Selection Techniques for Pregnancy Rates in an Unselected IVF–ICSI Population

(1) Background: Semen analysis is a poor predictor of the fertilization potential of spermatozoa and a male factor may contribute to poor outcomes of the IVF procedure, despite a normal semen analysis. The microfluidic sperm selection (ZyMot-ICSI) is based on the selection of the spermatozoa with th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zaha, Ioana, Naghi, Petronela, Stefan, Liana, Bunescu, Cosmina, Radu, Mihaela, Muresan, Mariana Eugenia, Sandor, Mircea, Sachelarie, Liliana, Huniadi, Anca
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10145657/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37109005
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm13040619
_version_ 1785034389534539776
author Zaha, Ioana
Naghi, Petronela
Stefan, Liana
Bunescu, Cosmina
Radu, Mihaela
Muresan, Mariana Eugenia
Sandor, Mircea
Sachelarie, Liliana
Huniadi, Anca
author_facet Zaha, Ioana
Naghi, Petronela
Stefan, Liana
Bunescu, Cosmina
Radu, Mihaela
Muresan, Mariana Eugenia
Sandor, Mircea
Sachelarie, Liliana
Huniadi, Anca
author_sort Zaha, Ioana
collection PubMed
description (1) Background: Semen analysis is a poor predictor of the fertilization potential of spermatozoa and a male factor may contribute to poor outcomes of the IVF procedure, despite a normal semen analysis. The microfluidic sperm selection (ZyMot-ICSI) is based on the selection of the spermatozoa with the lowest DNA fragmentation rate, but studies do not prove better clinical outcomes after this method. (2) Methods: We conducted a retrospective trial comparing 119 couples that were allocated to the classic gradient centrifugation sperm method (control group), and 120 couples that were allocated with the microfluidic technique being used (study group) at our university-level clinic, to go through IVF. (3) Results: The statistical analysis showed that there is no significant difference between the fertilization rate (study vs. control p = 0.87), but regarding blastocyst rate (study vs. control p = 0.046) and clinical pregnancy (p = 0.049), there is quite a significant statistical difference. Microfluidic preparation of spermatozoa seems to improve the results and it may be utilized more broadly for ICSI, and could also improve the workflow in standard IVF, decrease intervention by laboratory personnel and provide more consistent incubation conditions. (4) Conclusions: The patients that had the sperm preparation for ICSI with the microfluidic sperm selection had slightly better results compared with the gradient centrifugation selection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10145657
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101456572023-04-29 Comparative Study of Sperm Selection Techniques for Pregnancy Rates in an Unselected IVF–ICSI Population Zaha, Ioana Naghi, Petronela Stefan, Liana Bunescu, Cosmina Radu, Mihaela Muresan, Mariana Eugenia Sandor, Mircea Sachelarie, Liliana Huniadi, Anca J Pers Med Article (1) Background: Semen analysis is a poor predictor of the fertilization potential of spermatozoa and a male factor may contribute to poor outcomes of the IVF procedure, despite a normal semen analysis. The microfluidic sperm selection (ZyMot-ICSI) is based on the selection of the spermatozoa with the lowest DNA fragmentation rate, but studies do not prove better clinical outcomes after this method. (2) Methods: We conducted a retrospective trial comparing 119 couples that were allocated to the classic gradient centrifugation sperm method (control group), and 120 couples that were allocated with the microfluidic technique being used (study group) at our university-level clinic, to go through IVF. (3) Results: The statistical analysis showed that there is no significant difference between the fertilization rate (study vs. control p = 0.87), but regarding blastocyst rate (study vs. control p = 0.046) and clinical pregnancy (p = 0.049), there is quite a significant statistical difference. Microfluidic preparation of spermatozoa seems to improve the results and it may be utilized more broadly for ICSI, and could also improve the workflow in standard IVF, decrease intervention by laboratory personnel and provide more consistent incubation conditions. (4) Conclusions: The patients that had the sperm preparation for ICSI with the microfluidic sperm selection had slightly better results compared with the gradient centrifugation selection. MDPI 2023-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC10145657/ /pubmed/37109005 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm13040619 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Zaha, Ioana
Naghi, Petronela
Stefan, Liana
Bunescu, Cosmina
Radu, Mihaela
Muresan, Mariana Eugenia
Sandor, Mircea
Sachelarie, Liliana
Huniadi, Anca
Comparative Study of Sperm Selection Techniques for Pregnancy Rates in an Unselected IVF–ICSI Population
title Comparative Study of Sperm Selection Techniques for Pregnancy Rates in an Unselected IVF–ICSI Population
title_full Comparative Study of Sperm Selection Techniques for Pregnancy Rates in an Unselected IVF–ICSI Population
title_fullStr Comparative Study of Sperm Selection Techniques for Pregnancy Rates in an Unselected IVF–ICSI Population
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Study of Sperm Selection Techniques for Pregnancy Rates in an Unselected IVF–ICSI Population
title_short Comparative Study of Sperm Selection Techniques for Pregnancy Rates in an Unselected IVF–ICSI Population
title_sort comparative study of sperm selection techniques for pregnancy rates in an unselected ivf–icsi population
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10145657/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37109005
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm13040619
work_keys_str_mv AT zahaioana comparativestudyofspermselectiontechniquesforpregnancyratesinanunselectedivficsipopulation
AT naghipetronela comparativestudyofspermselectiontechniquesforpregnancyratesinanunselectedivficsipopulation
AT stefanliana comparativestudyofspermselectiontechniquesforpregnancyratesinanunselectedivficsipopulation
AT bunescucosmina comparativestudyofspermselectiontechniquesforpregnancyratesinanunselectedivficsipopulation
AT radumihaela comparativestudyofspermselectiontechniquesforpregnancyratesinanunselectedivficsipopulation
AT muresanmarianaeugenia comparativestudyofspermselectiontechniquesforpregnancyratesinanunselectedivficsipopulation
AT sandormircea comparativestudyofspermselectiontechniquesforpregnancyratesinanunselectedivficsipopulation
AT sachelarieliliana comparativestudyofspermselectiontechniquesforpregnancyratesinanunselectedivficsipopulation
AT huniadianca comparativestudyofspermselectiontechniquesforpregnancyratesinanunselectedivficsipopulation