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 degrees 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.
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 degrees 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.