Article Sidebar

PDF (Tiếng Việt)
Published: 2023-08-22
Abstract Views: 327
Views PDF (Tiếng Việt): 381
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v168i7.1725
Issue
Vol. 168 No. 7 (2023)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Minh, H. N. ., Tâm, Đỗ T. M. ., Ly, C. T. ., & Hương, Đỗ T. . (2023). 4. Evaluation of sperm quality using microfluidic technique for in vitro fertilization. Journal of Medical Research, 168(7), 25-34. https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v168i7.1725

4. Evaluation of sperm quality using microfluidic technique for in vitro fertilization

Ho Nguyet Minh, Do Thi Minh Tam, Chu Thi Ly, Do Thuy Huong

Main Article Content

Abstract

In recent years, in addition to conventional methods, sperm selection by microfluidic system is being applied and gradually becoming more popular in IVF. This is an experimental study on 30 semen samples to compare the quality of sperm preparation by 2 methods: density gradient method (control group) and microfluidic sperm sorting chip (intervention group). The results showed that the sperm DNA fragmentation index (DFI) of the microfluidic group (0.67 ± 0.53%) was significantly lower than that of the density gradient group (1.18 ± 13.73%). The progressive motile sperm recovery rate was higher in the group using the microfluidic system (32.14 ± 18.14 vs 39.75 ± 19.20). Our data also showed that the vitality and mobility of sperm in the microfluidic group was higher than in the density gradient group (97.9 ± 2.21 vs 96.56 ± 4.11%, 96.36 ± 2.60 vs 95.06 ± 2.35%, respectively). However, there was no difference in the percentage of spermatozoa with progressive motility and sperm morphology between the two groups. Based on the aforementioned result, microfluidic system is a potential option for preparing sperm to improve the DNA fragmentation index.

Article Details

Keywords

Density gradient, microfluidic, DFI, In vitro fertilization, sperm preparation

References

1. Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR, Boerma T, et al. National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: a systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med. 2012;9(12):e1001356. doi:10.1371/journal.pme d.1001356
2. Katz DJ, Teloken P, Shoshany O. Male infertility - The other side of the equation. Aust Fam Physician. 2017;46(9):641-646.
3. Asghar W, Velasco V, Kingsley JL, et al. Selection of functional human sperm with higher DNA integrity and fewer reactive oxygen species. Adv Healthc Mater. 2014;3(10):1671-1679. doi:10.1002/adhm.201400058
4. Makwana DP, Makwana S, Sen T. P-069 microfluidic sperm sorting vs density gradient to yield sperm with reduced DFI for patients undergoing IVF-ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(Supplement_1):deab130.068. doi:10.1093/humrep/deab130.068
5. Bastuba M, Cohen M, Bastuba A, et al. Microfluidic sperm separation device dramatically lowers DFI. Fertil Steril. 2020;113:e44. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.02.096
6. Quinn MM, Jalalian L, Ribeiro S, et al. Microfluidic sorting selects sperm for clinical use with reduced DNA damage compared to density gradient centrifugation with swim-up in split semen samples. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(8):1388-1393. doi:10.1093/humrep/dey239
7. Alvarez Sedó C, Bilinski M, Lorenzi D, et al. Effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on embryo development: clinical and biological aspects. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2017;21(4):343-350. doi:10.5935/1518-0557.20170061
8. Avendaño C, Franchi A, Taylor S, et al. Fragmentation of DNA in morphologically normal human spermatozoa. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(4):1077-1084. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert. 2008.01.015