Aldo Volpes1, Francesca Sammartano2, Simona Rizzari2, Salvatore Gullo3, Angelo Marino2, Adolfo Allegra2. 1. Reproductive Medicine Unit, Andros Day Surgery Clinic, Via Ausonia 43/45, 90144, Palermo, Italy. volpes@centroandros.it. 2. Reproductive Medicine Unit, Andros Day Surgery Clinic, Via Ausonia 43/45, 90144, Palermo, Italy. 3. Medical Statistics Unit, Andros Day Surgery Clinic, Palermo, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the most suitable sperm preparation technique to apply in order to obtain a spermatozoon population with minimal DNA damage during in vitro fertilization procedures. We compared four preparation techniques: direct swim-up (DSU), pellet swim-up (PSU), density gradient (DG), and density gradient followed by swim-up (DG-SU), evaluating the effects of each technique on the DNA damage rate, evaluated by DNA fragmentation index of the spermatozoa obtained. METHODS: In this observational study, 98 semen samples from couples undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles were included. Data were collected between April and November 2014 at the ANDROS Day Surgery Clinic, Palermo, Italy. RESULT(S): The percentages of DNA fragmentation were 18.30 ± 10.8 in raw samples, 6.6 ± 5.7 after DSU, 4.2 ± 3.8 after PSU, 12.9 ± 9.9 after DG, and 3.7 ± 4.0 after DG-SU respectively. Compared to the raw evaluation, all the preparation techniques significantly decreased the total rate of the DNA fragmentation (DSU Z = -8.60, P < 0.008; PSU Z = -8.54, P < 0.008; DG Z = -6.42, P < 0.008, and DG-SU Z = -8.60, P < 0.008, respectively). Comparing them, spermatozoa with intact DNA after PSU and DG-SU were significantly higher than after DSU (Z = -7.12, P < 0.008; Z = -6.59, P < 0.008, respectively) and after DG (Z = -8.41, P < 0.008; Z = -8.60, P < 0.008, respectively). The difference between PSU and DG-SU was not significant (Z = -2.21, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION(S): There are, above all, two techniques of sperm preparation which allow for the recovery of spermatozoa with the lowest DNA fragmentation rate. Furthermore, given low costs and reduced time, we believe that PSU is the best option in the treatment of semen samples during IVF/ICSI.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the most suitable sperm preparation technique to apply in order to obtain a spermatozoon population with minimal DNA damage during in vitro fertilization procedures. We compared four preparation techniques: direct swim-up (DSU), pellet swim-up (PSU), density gradient (DG), and density gradient followed by swim-up (DG-SU), evaluating the effects of each technique on the DNA damage rate, evaluated by DNA fragmentation index of the spermatozoa obtained. METHODS: In this observational study, 98 semen samples from couples undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles were included. Data were collected between April and November 2014 at the ANDROS Day Surgery Clinic, Palermo, Italy. RESULT(S): The percentages of DNA fragmentation were 18.30 ± 10.8 in raw samples, 6.6 ± 5.7 after DSU, 4.2 ± 3.8 after PSU, 12.9 ± 9.9 after DG, and 3.7 ± 4.0 after DG-SU respectively. Compared to the raw evaluation, all the preparation techniques significantly decreased the total rate of the DNA fragmentation (DSU Z = -8.60, P < 0.008; PSU Z = -8.54, P < 0.008; DG Z = -6.42, P < 0.008, and DG-SU Z = -8.60, P < 0.008, respectively). Comparing them, spermatozoa with intact DNA after PSU and DG-SU were significantly higher than after DSU (Z = -7.12, P < 0.008; Z = -6.59, P < 0.008, respectively) and after DG (Z = -8.41, P < 0.008; Z = -8.60, P < 0.008, respectively). The difference between PSU and DG-SU was not significant (Z = -2.21, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION(S): There are, above all, two techniques of sperm preparation which allow for the recovery of spermatozoa with the lowest DNA fragmentation rate. Furthermore, given low costs and reduced time, we believe that PSU is the best option in the treatment of semen samples during IVF/ICSI.
Authors: D P Evenson; L K Jost; D Marshall; M J Zinaman; E Clegg; K Purvis; P de Angelis; O P Claussen Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Juan Felipe Velez de la Calle; Audrey Muller; Marie Walschaerts; Jean Louis Clavere; Clément Jimenez; Christiane Wittemer; Patrick Thonneau Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2007-12-31 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Jose Luis Fernández; Lourdes Muriel; Maria Teresa Rivero; Vicente Goyanes; Rosana Vazquez; Juan G Alvarez Journal: J Androl Date: 2003 Jan-Feb
Authors: J Ribas-Maynou; A García-Peiró; A Fernández-Encinas; C Abad; M J Amengual; E Prada; J Navarro; J Benet Journal: Andrology Date: 2013-07-11 Impact factor: 3.842
Authors: M Muratori; N Tarozzi; F Carpentiero; S Danti; F M Perrone; M Cambi; A Casini; C Azzari; L Boni; M Maggi; A Borini; E Baldi Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Georges Raad; Joseph Azouri; Kamal Rizk; Nina S Zeidan; Jessica Azouri; Valérie Grandjean; Mira Hazzouri Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240