14. Comparison of the effectiveness between microfluidics and density gradient centrifugation techniques in sperm preparation for IVF
Main Article Content
Abstract
We conducted a comparative experimental study on 71 semen samples of couples undergoing IVF to evaluate sperm quality using 2 methods: microfluidic and density gradient centrifugation. This was a randomized controlled clinical trial study to compare embryogenesis results, and pregnancy rate between microfluidic and density gradient centrifugation techniques groups. 92 couples scheduled for IVF in the study were randomly assigned to two groups. In group 1 (intervention group), sperm was prepared by using microfluidic technique, and in group 2 (control group), sperm was prepared by using a density gradient technique. The results showed that, sperm quality obtained by both techniques is equivalent in concentration, progressive motile, recovery, and progressive sperm recovery rate. However, there was a higher vitality (97.9% vs 97.9%; p = 0.0009) and a lower DFI rate (0.64 vs 2.3; p = 0.0028) in sperm prepared by the microfluidic technique. (Based on the aforementioned result, microfluidic reduced sperm DFI is significantly better than the density gradient centrifugation method. However, there was no difference in fertilization, embryogenesis, good embryo as well as pregnancy rate between 2 groups.
Article Details
Keywords
Microfluidic, density gradient centrifugation, sperm preparation, in vitro fertilization, DFI
References
2. Avendaño C, Franchi A, Duran H, et al. DNA fragmentation of normal spermatozoa negatively impacts embryo quality and intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(2):549-557. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.050
3. Zheng WW, Song G, Wang QL, et al. Sperm DNA damage has a negative effect on early embryonic development following in vitro fertilization. Asian J Androl. 2018;20(1):75-79. doi:10.4103/aja.aja_19_17
4. Waseem Asghar, Vanessa Velasco, James L Kingsley, et al. Selection of functional human sperm with higher DNA integrity and fewer reactive oxygen species. Adv Healthc Mater. 2014;3(10):1671-9. doi: 10.1002/adhm. 201400058
5. Poseidon Group (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number), Alviggi C, Andersen CY, et al. A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: from a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1452-1453. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.005
6. 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
7. Bastuba M, Cohen M, Bastuba A, et al. Microfluidic sperm separation device dramatically lowers DFI. Fertil Steril. 2020;113(4):e44. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.02.096
8. Chen L, Fang J, Jiang W, et al. Effects of the sperm DNA fragmentation index on the clinical and neonatal outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. J Ovarian Res. 2020;13(1):52. doi:10.1186/s13 048-020-00658-z
9. Lin-Tao Xue, Rui-Xue Wang. Effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on clinical outcomes for Chinese couples undergoing in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. J Int Med Res. 2016;44(6):1283 1291. doi:10.1177/0300060516664240.