Stav Oved Ovics1, Shira Baram2,3, Simon Nothman2,3, Amir Weiss2,3, Ronit Beck-Fruchter4,5. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bnai-Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel. 2. Fertility Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Emek Medical Center, 21 Yitzhak Rabin Ave, 1834111, Afula, Israel. 3. Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. 4. Fertility Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Emek Medical Center, 21 Yitzhak Rabin Ave, 1834111, Afula, Israel. Beck_r@technion.ac.il. 5. Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. Beck_r@technion.ac.il.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide the clinicians with the most comprehensive medical information about sperm acquisition peri/postmortem. METHODS: The review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched up to January 2021. All studies reporting post or perimortem harvesting of sperm with any indication of an outcome, recognition and viability of sperm, and its utilization and treatment outcome were included. Studies that recorded cases but discussed only the ethical or legal issues without any information about the medical details were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included in this review. One hundred forty-eight cases were described; in 113 of them, sperm was retrieved. A variety of techniques for sperm acquisition were used. The data collected are limited and comparing the efficacy of the different approaches is not feasible. The longest time interval described between the death and viable sperm acquisition was 3 days. The sperm quality varies between the studies. One hundred thirty-six mature oocytes were injected with the retrieved sperm; the fertilization rate was 41%. Transfer cycles of 25 embryos and 8 live births are reported in the medical literature. CONCLUSION: The overall low quality and high heterogeneity of the available data impair the ability to draw definitive conclusions. However, it can be stated that sperm acquisition up to at least 3 days postmortem can result in the live birth of healthy offspring. Further studies are needed to clarify the medical questions regarding the best techniques, success rates, and wellbeing of the parties involved.
PURPOSE: To provide the clinicians with the most comprehensive medical information about sperm acquisition peri/postmortem. METHODS: The review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched up to January 2021. All studies reporting post or perimortem harvesting of sperm with any indication of an outcome, recognition and viability of sperm, and its utilization and treatment outcome were included. Studies that recorded cases but discussed only the ethical or legal issues without any information about the medical details were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included in this review. One hundred forty-eight cases were described; in 113 of them, sperm was retrieved. A variety of techniques for sperm acquisition were used. The data collected are limited and comparing the efficacy of the different approaches is not feasible. The longest time interval described between the death and viable sperm acquisition was 3 days. The sperm quality varies between the studies. One hundred thirty-six mature oocytes were injected with the retrieved sperm; the fertilization rate was 41%. Transfer cycles of 25 embryos and 8 live births are reported in the medical literature. CONCLUSION: The overall low quality and high heterogeneity of the available data impair the ability to draw definitive conclusions. However, it can be stated that sperm acquisition up to at least 3 days postmortem can result in the live birth of healthy offspring. Further studies are needed to clarify the medical questions regarding the best techniques, success rates, and wellbeing of the parties involved.
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Jennifer A Tash; Linda D Applegarth; Susan M Kerr; Joseph J Fins; Zev Rosenwaks; Peter N Schlegel Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 7.450