PURPOSE: To determine whether the use of Magnetic Activated Cell Sorting (MACS) as a sperm selection technique improves ART success rates in couples undergoing assisted reproduction treatment. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized trials. Two reviewers conducted study selection and data extraction independently. RESULTS: Five studies (prospective randomized trials) that comprised 499 patients were included. Sperm selection using MACS resulted in statistically significant differences in pregnancy rates when compared with density gradient centrifugation and swim-up techniques (RR=1.50, 95 % CI 1.14-1.98). No differences were found between the groups according to the implantation (RR=1.03, 95 % CI 0.80-1.31) and miscarriage (RR=2.00, 95 % CI 0.19-20.90) rates. CONCLUSIONS: MACS appears to be a safe and efficient method to select functional sperm with consistently good results. This technique may improve pregnancy rates when used to complement standard sperm selection methods in ART.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the use of Magnetic Activated Cell Sorting (MACS) as a sperm selection technique improves ART success rates in couples undergoing assisted reproduction treatment. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized trials. Two reviewers conducted study selection and data extraction independently. RESULTS: Five studies (prospective randomized trials) that comprised 499 patients were included. Sperm selection using MACS resulted in statistically significant differences in pregnancy rates when compared with density gradient centrifugation and swim-up techniques (RR=1.50, 95 % CI 1.14-1.98). No differences were found between the groups according to the implantation (RR=1.03, 95 % CI 0.80-1.31) and miscarriage (RR=2.00, 95 % CI 0.19-20.90) rates. CONCLUSIONS: MACS appears to be a safe and efficient method to select functional sperm with consistently good results. This technique may improve pregnancy rates when used to complement standard sperm selection methods in ART.
Authors: Christian De Geyter; Ursula Gobrecht-Keller; Astrid Ahler; Manuel Fischer Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Erica T Y Leung; Cheuk-Lun Lee; Xinyi Tian; Kevin K W Lam; Raymond H W Li; Ernest H Y Ng; William S B Yeung; Philip C N Chiu Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2021-11-05 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Serafín Pérez-Cerezales; Ricardo Laguna-Barraza; Alejandro Chacón de Castro; María Jesús Sánchez-Calabuig; Esther Cano-Oliva; Francisco Javier de Castro-Pita; Luis Montoro-Buils; Eva Pericuesta; Raúl Fernández-González; Alfonso Gutiérrez-Adán Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: María Gil Juliá; Irene Hervás; Ana Navarro-Gómez Lechón; Fernando Quintana; David Amorós; Alberto Pacheco; Cristina González-Ravina; Rocío Rivera-Egea; Nicolás Garrido Journal: Biology (Basel) Date: 2021-05-12