Selçuk Yetkinel1, Esra Bulgan Kilicdag2, Pinar Caglar Aytac2, Bülent Haydardedeoglu2, Erhan Simsek2, Tayfun Cok2. 1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University, Adana, Turkey. syetkinel@hotmail.com. 2. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Baskent University, Adana, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The new-generation spermatozoon selection method, microfluidic technique called Fertile Chip® gives the chance to select spermatozoa with lower DNA fragmentation indexes. We aimed to determine the effect of microfluidic techniques for spermatozoon selection in ICSI treatment in patients with unexplained infertility. METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled study was conducted at a university hospital. One hundred twenty-two couples with unexplained infertility were included, in which 61 of them were treated with conventional swim-up techniques (control group) and another 61 with the microfluidic technique (study group) for spermatozoon selection in IVF treatment. The fertilization rates and the quality of embryos were the primary outcomes, and clinical pregnancy (CPR) andlive birth rates (LBR) were the secondary outcomes of our study. RESULTS: CPR in the study group and control group were 48.3% and 44.8% (p = 0.35) and LBR were 38.3% and 36.2% (p = 0.48), respectively. The fertilization rates were similar (63.6% and 57.4%, p = 0.098). A total number of grade 1 embryos were significantly higher in microfluidic technique group than in control group (1.45 ± 1.62 vs. 0.83 ± 1.03, p = 0.01). There were more surplus top quality embryos leftover to freeze in the study group (0.71 ± 1.48 vs. 0.22 ± 0.69, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the microfluidic technique does not change fertilization, CPR, and LBR during IVF treatment for couples with unexplained infertility. Despite the fact that the total number of grade 1 embryos after ICSI treatment and the surplus number of grade 1 embryos after embryo transfer were higher in the microfluidic technique group, the study was not powered to detect this difference. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02488434.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The new-generation spermatozoon selection method, microfluidic technique called Fertile Chip® gives the chance to select spermatozoa with lower DNA fragmentation indexes. We aimed to determine the effect of microfluidic techniques for spermatozoon selection in ICSI treatment in patients with unexplained infertility. METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled study was conducted at a university hospital. One hundred twenty-two couples with unexplained infertility were included, in which 61 of them were treated with conventional swim-up techniques (control group) and another 61 with the microfluidic technique (study group) for spermatozoon selection in IVF treatment. The fertilization rates and the quality of embryos were the primary outcomes, and clinical pregnancy (CPR) and live birth rates (LBR) were the secondary outcomes of our study. RESULTS: CPR in the study group and control group were 48.3% and 44.8% (p = 0.35) and LBR were 38.3% and 36.2% (p = 0.48), respectively. The fertilization rates were similar (63.6% and 57.4%, p = 0.098). A total number of grade 1 embryos were significantly higher in microfluidic technique group than in control group (1.45 ± 1.62 vs. 0.83 ± 1.03, p = 0.01). There were more surplus top quality embryos leftover to freeze in the study group (0.71 ± 1.48 vs. 0.22 ± 0.69, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the microfluidic technique does not change fertilization, CPR, and LBR during IVF treatment for couples with unexplained infertility. Despite the fact that the total number of grade 1 embryos after ICSI treatment and the surplus number of grade 1 embryos after embryo transfer were higher in the microfluidic technique group, the study was not powered to detect this difference. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02488434.
Authors: M Kheirollahi-Kouhestani; S Razavi; M Tavalaee; M R Deemeh; M Mardani; J Moshtaghian; M H Nasr-Esfahani Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2009-06-24 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: R John Aitken; Geoffry N De Iuliis; Jane M Finnie; Andrew Hedges; Robert I McLachlan Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2010-08-17 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Trevor G Cooper; Elizabeth Noonan; Sigrid von Eckardstein; Jacques Auger; H W Gordon Baker; Hermann M Behre; Trine B Haugen; Thinus Kruger; Christina Wang; Michael T Mbizvo; Kirsten M Vogelsong Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 15.610
Authors: Michael P Rimmer; Ruth A Howie; Venkatesh Subramanian; Richard A Anderson; Ricardo Pimenta Bertolla; Yusuf Beebeejaun; Pietro Bortoletto; Sesh K Sunkara; Rod T Mitchell; Allan Pacey; Madelon van Wely; Cindy M Farquhar; James M N Duffy; Craig Niederberger Journal: Hum Reprod Open Date: 2022-03-04