Changes in Sperm Quality After Two Different Techniques of Sperm Preparation

Main Article Content

Pattraporn Satitsuksanoa Somsak Suthuvoravut Anna Wongkularb

Abstract

Introduction: Sperm preparation is an important step in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART). The two commonly used sperm preparation techniques in ART laboratory are the swim-up technique and density gradient centrifugation. The objective of this study was to compare the sperm qualities after sperm preparation between the swim-up technique and density gradient centrifugation.


Materials & Methods: A total of 25 semen samples were obtained from men who attended infertility clinic, Department of OB-GYN, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University during February 2012 and March 2012. Semen samples were divided into two equal aliquots for sperm preparation by using the swim-up technique and density gradient centrifugation. Sperm qualities were evaluated as the sperm concentration, total motile sperm, the percentage of sperm motility, and the percentage of normal sperm morphology. The comparison between groups was done by paired t-test with significant level a gif.latex?\alpha < 0.05.


Results: The swim-up technique gave a better result in sperm motility and sperm normal morphology than the density gradient centrifugation technique. Density gradient technique resulted in higher sperm concentration and total motile sperm.


Conclusions: The swim-up technique should be a more suitable technique for sperm preparation in ART laboratories because it is a very simple, fast, effective, and less expensive.

Keywords

Article Details

How to Cite
Satitsuksanoa, P., Suthuvoravut, S., & Wongkularb, A. (2012). Changes in Sperm Quality After Two Different Techniques of Sperm Preparation. Ramathibodi Medical Journal, 35(4), 309-313. Retrieved from https://www.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ramajournal/article/view/135487
Section
Original Articles

References

1. Guzick DS, Overstreet JW, Factor-Litvak P, Brazil CK, Nakajima ST, Coutifaris C, et al. Sperm morphology, motility, and concentration in fertile and infertile men. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(19):1388-93. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa003005.

2. Acosta AA, Kruger TF, editors. Human Spermatozoa in Assisted Reproduction. 2nd ed. Carnforth, United Kingdom: Parthenon Publishing; 1996.

3. Ren SS, Sun GH, Ku CH, Chen DC, Wu GJ. Comparison of four methods for sperm preparation for IUI. Arch Androl. 2004;50(3):139-43. doi:10.1080/01485010490425566.

4. World Health Organization. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen. 5th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44261.

5. Ricci G, Perticarari S, Boscolo R, Montico M, Guaschino S, Presani G. Semen preparation methods and sperm apoptosis: swim-up versus gradient-density centrifugation technique. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(2):632-8. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.11.068.

6. Drobnis EZ, Zhong CQ, Overstreet JW. Separation of cryopreserved human semen using Sephadex columns, washing, or Percoll gradients. J Androl. 1991;12(3):201-8. doi:10.1002/j.1939-4640.1991.tb00250.x.

7. Söderlund B, Lundin K. The use of silane-coated silica particles for density gradient centrifugation in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(4):857-60. doi:10.1093/humrep/15.4.857.

8. Mousset-Siméon N, Rives N, Masse L, Chevallier F, Mace B. Comparison of six density gradient media for selection of cryopreserved donor spermatozoa. J Androl. 2004;25(6):881-4. doi:10.1002/j.1939-4640.2004.tb03157.x.

9. Van der Zwalmen P, Bertin G, Schoysman-Deboeck A, Geerts L, Schoysman R, Debauche C. Techniques of sperm selection, improvement and separation in an in vitro fertilization program. Acta Eur Fertil. 1989;20(5):269-83.

10. Agarwal A, Ikemoto I, Loughlin KR. Effect of sperm washing on levels of reactive oxygen species in semen. Arch Androl. 1994;33(3):157-62.

11. Chiamchanya C, Kaewnoonual N, Visutakul P, Manochantr S, Chaiya J. Comparative study of the effects of three semen preparation media on semen analysis, DNA damage and protamine deficiency, and the correlation between DNA integrity and sperm parameters. Asian J Androl. 2010;12(2):271-7. doi:10.1038/aja.2009.60.

12. Tomlinson MJ, Moffatt O, Manicardi GC, Bizzaro D, Afnan M, Sakkas D. Interrelationships between seminal parameters and sperm nuclear DNA damage before and after density gradient centrifugation: implications for assisted conception. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(10):2160-5. doi:10.1093/humrep/16.10.2160.

13. Van Waart J, Kruger TF, Lombard CJ, Ombelet W. Predictive value of normal sperm morphology in intrauterine insemination (IUI): a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7(5):495-500. doi:10.1093/humupd/7.5.495.

14. Kasai T, Ogawa K, Mizuno K, Nagai S, Uchida Y, Ohta S, et al. Relationship between sperm mitochondrial membrane potential, sperm motility, and fertility potential. Asian J Androl. 2002;4(2):97-103.

15. Morbeck DE, Leonard PH, Weaver AL, Shimek KM, Bouwsma EV, Coddington CC. Sperm morphology: classification drift over time and clinical implications. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(6):1350-4. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.08.036.