Cargando…

Triple touch sperm immobilization vs. single touch sperm immobilization in ICSI - a randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Although different techniques for sperm immobilization have been described, their value has not been assessed in an adequately powered randomized study. The aim of this study was to compare two types of sperm immobilization methods prior to ICSI and to test the hypothesis that triple tou...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Velaers, An, Paternot, Goedele, Debrock, Sophie, D’Hooghe, Thomas, Spiessens, Carl
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495229/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22929301
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-10-65
_version_ 1782249473068498944
author Velaers, An
Paternot, Goedele
Debrock, Sophie
D’Hooghe, Thomas
Spiessens, Carl
author_facet Velaers, An
Paternot, Goedele
Debrock, Sophie
D’Hooghe, Thomas
Spiessens, Carl
author_sort Velaers, An
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Although different techniques for sperm immobilization have been described, their value has not been assessed in an adequately powered randomized study. The aim of this study was to compare two types of sperm immobilization methods prior to ICSI and to test the hypothesis that triple touch immobilization (TTIm) would lead to a higher (5% -65% up to 70%) fertilization rate (FR) than single touch immobilization (STIm). METHODS: A total of 3056 metaphase II (MII) oocytes, from 290 patients, were randomly assigned to the STIm group (n = 1528 oocytes; 145 cycles) or to the TTIm group (n = 1528 oocytes; 138 cycles). A total of 1478 oocytes (STIm group) and 1476 oocytes (TTIm group) were used in the statistical analysis. The primary outcome variable was FR. Secondary outcome variables included: number of good quality embryos (GQE) on day 2 and day 3, implantation rate (IR) and implantation with foetal heart beat rate (FHB). Statistical analysis was done using the Fisher Exact test with a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: The results showed no differences in FR between both groups. The proportion of good quality embryos on day 3, was significantly higher in the STIm group (37.5%) compared to the TTIm group (31.8%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this RCT, the hypothesis that the post-ICSI FR would be higher after TTIm than after STIm was not confirmed and the number of good quality embryos on day 3 was significantly lower in the TTIm group than in the STIm group. These data suggest that more ‘aggressive’ TTIm technique has no advantages compared to the STIm technique.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3495229
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34952292012-11-12 Triple touch sperm immobilization vs. single touch sperm immobilization in ICSI - a randomised trial Velaers, An Paternot, Goedele Debrock, Sophie D’Hooghe, Thomas Spiessens, Carl Reprod Biol Endocrinol Hypothesis BACKGROUND: Although different techniques for sperm immobilization have been described, their value has not been assessed in an adequately powered randomized study. The aim of this study was to compare two types of sperm immobilization methods prior to ICSI and to test the hypothesis that triple touch immobilization (TTIm) would lead to a higher (5% -65% up to 70%) fertilization rate (FR) than single touch immobilization (STIm). METHODS: A total of 3056 metaphase II (MII) oocytes, from 290 patients, were randomly assigned to the STIm group (n = 1528 oocytes; 145 cycles) or to the TTIm group (n = 1528 oocytes; 138 cycles). A total of 1478 oocytes (STIm group) and 1476 oocytes (TTIm group) were used in the statistical analysis. The primary outcome variable was FR. Secondary outcome variables included: number of good quality embryos (GQE) on day 2 and day 3, implantation rate (IR) and implantation with foetal heart beat rate (FHB). Statistical analysis was done using the Fisher Exact test with a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: The results showed no differences in FR between both groups. The proportion of good quality embryos on day 3, was significantly higher in the STIm group (37.5%) compared to the TTIm group (31.8%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this RCT, the hypothesis that the post-ICSI FR would be higher after TTIm than after STIm was not confirmed and the number of good quality embryos on day 3 was significantly lower in the TTIm group than in the STIm group. These data suggest that more ‘aggressive’ TTIm technique has no advantages compared to the STIm technique. BioMed Central 2012-08-29 /pmc/articles/PMC3495229/ /pubmed/22929301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-10-65 Text en Copyright ©2012 Velaers et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Hypothesis
Velaers, An
Paternot, Goedele
Debrock, Sophie
D’Hooghe, Thomas
Spiessens, Carl
Triple touch sperm immobilization vs. single touch sperm immobilization in ICSI - a randomised trial
title Triple touch sperm immobilization vs. single touch sperm immobilization in ICSI - a randomised trial
title_full Triple touch sperm immobilization vs. single touch sperm immobilization in ICSI - a randomised trial
title_fullStr Triple touch sperm immobilization vs. single touch sperm immobilization in ICSI - a randomised trial
title_full_unstemmed Triple touch sperm immobilization vs. single touch sperm immobilization in ICSI - a randomised trial
title_short Triple touch sperm immobilization vs. single touch sperm immobilization in ICSI - a randomised trial
title_sort triple touch sperm immobilization vs. single touch sperm immobilization in icsi - a randomised trial
topic Hypothesis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495229/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22929301
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-10-65
work_keys_str_mv AT velaersan tripletouchspermimmobilizationvssingletouchspermimmobilizationinicsiarandomisedtrial
AT paternotgoedele tripletouchspermimmobilizationvssingletouchspermimmobilizationinicsiarandomisedtrial
AT debrocksophie tripletouchspermimmobilizationvssingletouchspermimmobilizationinicsiarandomisedtrial
AT dhooghethomas tripletouchspermimmobilizationvssingletouchspermimmobilizationinicsiarandomisedtrial
AT spiessenscarl tripletouchspermimmobilizationvssingletouchspermimmobilizationinicsiarandomisedtrial