| Literature DB >> 35928460 |
Sapna Srinivas1, Suhasini Donthi1, Anupama Deenadayal Mettler2, Aarti Deenadayal Tolani1, Mamata Deenadayal1.
Abstract
Background: Microfluidics (MF), an advanced sperm sorting technology results in the extraction of spermatozoa with higher DNA integrity and lower DNA damage compared to existing conventional sperm sorting methods. Aims: The aim of the present study is to assess the efficiency of MF and to isolate the best spermatozoa for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) over the density gradient (DG) technique. Study Setting and Design: We recruited couples who choose the oocyte donation programme for this study to eliminate confounding factors associated with oocyte quality. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: DNA integrity; Density gradient; intracytoplasmic sperm injection; miscarriage rate; sperm DNA damage
Year: 2022 PMID: 35928460 PMCID: PMC9345273 DOI: 10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_15_22
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Hum Reprod Sci ISSN: 1998-4766
Demographics of study popsation
| Sperm processing technique | Age (years) | BMI of female | Male use of tobacco (no/yes) | Fever in 3 months (male) | Sperm count (million) | DFI (%) | HDS (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| Female | Male | Female | Male | Count | Motility | |||||
| MF ( | 33.32±5.54 | 37.41±5.40 | 25.25±4.36 | 27.34±7.22 | 148/32 | Not significant | 54.26±19.03 | 17.66±9.78* | 18.24±10.45 | 11.32±5.73 |
| DG ( | 31.14±3.70 | 36.14±4.21 | 25.68±4.61 | 27.59±7.45 | 128/23 | Not significant | 56.47±18.88 | 13.54±7.15* | 19.25±13.13 | 11.59±6.65 |
*P value between sperm motility in microfluidics and density gradient is significant<0.05. BMI=Body mass index, DFI=DNA fragmentation index, HDS=High DNA stainability, MF=Micro fluidics, DG=Density gradient
Outcome of pregnancy in microfluidics and density gradient
| Sperm processing technique | Positive pregnancy, | Negative pregnancy, | Fate of positive pregnancy | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Clinical pregnancy, | Abortion, | Biochemical pregnancy, | Blighted ovum, | |||
| MF ( | 124 (69) | 56 (31) | 100 (81) | 18 (14) | 5 (4) | 0 but 1 ectopic (1) |
| DG ( | 97 (65) | 54 (35) | 89 (91.7) | 6 (6) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) |
MF=Micro fluidics, DG=Density gradient
Figure 1Comparison of female age between clinical pregnancy and miscarriage groups in microfluidics. No significant variation is observed. Miscarriage group included abortion, biochemical pregnancy, blighted ovum and ectopic pregnancy. CP = Clinical pregnancy
Figure 2Comparison of female age between clinical pregnancy and miscarriage groups in density gradient. A significant variation is observed. Miscarriage group included abortion, biochemical pregnancy, blighted ovum and ectopic pregnancy. CP = Clinical pregnancy
Figure 3Comparison of sperm DFI percentage between CP group and miscarriage group in microfluidics. Miscarriage group included abortion, biochemical pregnancy, blighted ovum and ectopic pregnancy. DFI = DNA fragmentation index, CP = Clinical pregnancy
Figure 4Comparison of sperm DFI percentage between CP group and miscarriage group in Density gradient. Miscarriage group included abortion, biochemical pregnancy, blighted ovum and ectopic pregnancy. DFI = DNA fragmentation index, CP = Clinical pregnancy