Minh Tam Le1, Thi Thai Thanh Nguyen2, Thanh Tung Nguyen3, Van Trung Nguyen2, Thi Tam An Nguyen2, Vu Quoc Huy Nguyen4, Ngoc Thanh Cao2. 1. Department of OBGYN, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, 06 Ngo Quyen Street, Hue, Viet Nam; Center for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, 06 Ngo Quyen Street, Hue, Viet Nam. Electronic address: leminhtam@huemed-univ.edu.vn. 2. Department of OBGYN, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, 06 Ngo Quyen Street, Hue, Viet Nam; Center for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, 06 Ngo Quyen Street, Hue, Viet Nam. 3. Department of Histology and Embryology, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, 06 Ngo Quyen Street, Hue, Viet Nam. 4. Department of OBGYN, Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, 06 Ngo Quyen Street, Hue, Viet Nam.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Sperm cryopreservation has great potential for male infertility treatment as used in assisted reproduction technology (ART). There are a variety of cryopreservation methods in order to preserve sperm in a long term. Although conventional freezing and vitrification now are used widely, they have damage on sperm parameters as well as sperm DNA integrity. It is necessary to answer which method is better and appropriate for sperm cryopreservation. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of conventional freezing and vitrification regarding to motility, vitality and morphology of sperm found in washed and unwashed samples. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred and five human fresh semen samples were divided into washed and unwashed halves using density-gradient centrifugation. Each group then was split into two aliquots: one cryopreserved by conventional freezing and the other by vitrification, using SpermFreeze Solution™ (Vitrolife, Västra Frölunda, Sweden) containing glycerol as a cryoprotectant. The sperm parameters were analyzed and compared between six groups: washed fresh (FW), unwashed fresh (FU), washed conventional freezing (CfW), unwashed conventional freezing (CfU), washed vitrification (VitW) and unwashed vitrification (VitU) samples. RESULTS: Sperm progressive motility, vitality and normal morphology significantly decreased, together with an appreciable increase in sperm head, midpiece and tail defects when comparing to the fresh sperm parameters after thawing in all groups. In conventional freezing method groups, progressive motility and vitality were substantially higher than that in vitrification method groups. However, vitrification gave better results in normal morphology rates. Additionally, sperm head, midpiece and tail defects were significant lower in two vitrification groups in comparison with conventional freezing groups. Interestingly, washed groups had better sperm parameters than unwashed groups so that washing process before frozen seemed to improve sperm parameters. CONCLUSION: Conventional freezing method resulted in better motility, viability in both washed/unwashed groups. On the contrary, spermatozoa undergoing vitrification were healthier regarding morphology with less defects than conventional freezing. Sperm washing before frozen was a beneficial preparation to sperm cryopreservation.
OBJECTIVES: Sperm cryopreservation has great potential for male infertility treatment as used in assisted reproduction technology (ART). There are a variety of cryopreservation methods in order to preserve sperm in a long term. Although conventional freezing and vitrification now are used widely, they have damage on sperm parameters as well as sperm DNA integrity. It is necessary to answer which method is better and appropriate for sperm cryopreservation. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of conventional freezing and vitrification regarding to motility, vitality and morphology of sperm found in washed and unwashed samples. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred and five human fresh semen samples were divided into washed and unwashed halves using density-gradient centrifugation. Each group then was split into two aliquots: one cryopreserved by conventional freezing and the other by vitrification, using SpermFreeze Solution™ (Vitrolife, Västra Frölunda, Sweden) containing glycerol as a cryoprotectant. The sperm parameters were analyzed and compared between six groups: washed fresh (FW), unwashed fresh (FU), washed conventional freezing (CfW), unwashed conventional freezing (CfU), washed vitrification (VitW) and unwashed vitrification (VitU) samples. RESULTS: Sperm progressive motility, vitality and normal morphology significantly decreased, together with an appreciable increase in sperm head, midpiece and tail defects when comparing to the fresh sperm parameters after thawing in all groups. In conventional freezing method groups, progressive motility and vitality were substantially higher than that in vitrification method groups. However, vitrification gave better results in normal morphology rates. Additionally, sperm head, midpiece and tail defects were significant lower in two vitrification groups in comparison with conventional freezing groups. Interestingly, washed groups had better sperm parameters than unwashed groups so that washing process before frozen seemed to improve sperm parameters. CONCLUSION: Conventional freezing method resulted in better motility, viability in both washed/unwashed groups. On the contrary, spermatozoa undergoing vitrification were healthier regarding morphology with less defects than conventional freezing. Sperm washing before frozen was a beneficial preparation to sperm cryopreservation.
Authors: Minh Tam Le; Thai Thanh Thi Nguyen; Tung Thanh Nguyen; Trung Van Nguyen; Tam An Thi Nguyen; Quoc Huy Vu Nguyen; Thanh Ngoc Cao Journal: Clin Exp Reprod Med Date: 2019-06-01
Authors: Rafael Favero Ambar; Marcello M Gava; Milton Ghirelli-Filho; Ivan H Yoshida; Thais Serzedello De Paula; Sidney Glina Journal: Arab J Urol Date: 2021-07-22
Authors: Pradeep Kumar; Mengying Wang; Evgenia Isachenko; Gohar Rahimi; Peter Mallmann; Wanxue Wang; Melanie von Brandenstein; Vladimir Isachenko Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol Date: 2021-07-02