Barroso G, Chaya M, Bolaños R, Rosado Y, García LF, Ibarrola E

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 221-228
PDF size: 80.91 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate sperm recovery and total sperm motility in three different sperm preparation techniques (density gradient, simple washing and swim-up).
Patients and methods: A total of 290 subjects were randomly evaluated from November 2001 to March 2003. The density gradient method required Isolate® (upper and lower layers). Centrifugation was performed at 400 g for 10 minutes and evaluation was done using the Makler counting chamber. The simple washing method included the use of HTF-M complemented with 7.5% of SSS, with centrifugation at 250 g, obtaining at the end 0.5 mL of the sperm sample. The swim-up method required HTF-M complemented with 7.5% of SSS, with an incubation period of 60 minutes at 37°C.
Results: The demographic characteristics evaluated through their standard error, 95% ICC, and 50th percentile were similar. The application of multiple comparison tests and analysis of variance showed significant differences between the sperm preparations before and after capacitation. It was observed a superior recovery rate with the density gradient and swim-up methods; nevertheless, the samples used for the simple washing method showed a diminished sperm recovery from the original sample.
Conclusions: Sperm preparation techniques have become very useful in male infertility treatments allowing higher sperm recovery and motility rates. The seminal parameters evaluated from the original sperm sample will determine the best sperm preparation technique in those patients who require it.

REFERENCES

1. Oehninger S. Strategies for the infertile man. Sem Reproductive Med 2001;19:231-7.

2. Trummer H, Caruso A, Lipshultz L, et al. Recent developments in the evaluation and treatment of male infertility. Infect Urol 2000;13:87-94.

3. Hull MG, Glazener CM, Kelly NJ, et al. Population study of causes, treatment, and outcome of infertility. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985;291(6510):1693-7.

4. Barroso G, Karchmer S, Kably Ambe A. Diagnóstico y tratamiento del factor masculino en la era del ICSI. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2000;68:204-6.

5. Carlsen E, Giwercman A, Keiding N, et al. Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years. BMJ 1992;305:609-13.

6. Padrón D, Fernández LG, Gallardo RM. Interpretación del análisis seminal. 1998;9:81-90.

7. Giménez C. Estudio funcional del semen. Laboratorio de Reproducción Asistida. Barcelona: Instituto Marqués, 2003.

8. Tucker KE, Jansen CA. Sperm separation techniques: comparison and evaluation of gradient products. 2nd International Workshop for Embryologists: troubleshooting activities in the ART lab. Ed. R. Basuray and D. Mortimer, 2002.

9. Sharma RK, Seifarth K, Garlak D, et al. Comparison of three sperm preparation media. Int J Fertil Womens Med 1999;44:163-7.

10. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucous interaction. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

11. Barroso G, Mercan R, Ozgur K, et al. Intra-and inter-laboratory variability in the assessment of sperm morphology by strict criteria: impact of semen preparation, staining techniques and manual versus computarized analysis. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2036-40.

12. Sofikitis N, Miyagawa I, Zavos PM, et al. Acrosin profiles of human spermatozoa recovered from the new SpermPrepTM II filtration column. Tohoku J Exp Med 1992;166:451-7

13. Padrón DRS, Fernández LGM, Gallardo RM. Interpretación del análisis seminal. Rev Cubana Endocrinol 1998;9(1):81-90.

14. Kruger TF, Acosta AA, Simmons KF. New method of evaluating sperm morphology with predictive value for human in vitro fertilization. Urology 1987;30:248-51.

15. Panayiotis MS. Preparation of human frozen-thawed seminal specimens using the SpermPrep filtration method: improvements over the conventional swim-up method. Fertil Steril 1992;57(6):1326-30.