Comparison Of the Effectiveness of Density Gradient Centrifugation and Microchip Sperm Preparation Methods On Pregnancy Success In Intrauterine Insemination

Year 2024, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 37 - 42, 29.07.2024

Bihter Senem Feyzioğlu , Zerrin Avul

Abstract

Introduction: Intrauterine insemination technique is one of the most commonly used methods in assisted reproductive treatments. Semen parameters are one of the prognostic factors affecting the clinical success of the intrauterine insemination method, and different sperm preparation techniques are applied to select quality sperm.
Methods: In this retrospective study, 217 couples who applied to the infertility center of our hospital between 2012 and 2020 were included in the study. Before the application of the intrauterine insemination method, semen samples taken from 178 patients were prepared by microchip method and semen samples taken from 39 patients were prepared by density gradient centrifugation method, and the concentration and motility properties of sperm were evaluated. Results: The clinical pregnancy success of sperm samples prepared with microchip and density gradient centrifugation method was evaluated after intrauterine insemination application. In the density gradient centrifugation method, motile sperm (79.46±12.48%) were obtained at a higher rate than the microchip method (57.48±20.24). While clinical pregnancy was observed in 46.15% of the patients included in the density gradient centrifugation group, it was determined as 23.03% in the microchip group. On the other hand, while pregnancy continued in 27.78% of the density gradient centrifugation group patients, the continuing pregnancy in the microchip group was determined as 53.66%. As a result, while the percentage of motile sperm and the incidence of clinical pregnancy increase in the density gradient centrifugation method compared to the microchip method, there is a significant decrease in the ongoing pregnancy rates.
Conclusions: It is seen that sperm samples prepared by microchip method have positive contributions to the clinical success of intrauterine insemination.

Keywords

Infertility, Intrauterine insemination, Density gradient centrifugation, Microchip, Sperm preparation

Intrauterin İnseminasyonda Dansite Gradiyent Santrifügasyon ve Mikroçip Sperm Hazırlama Yöntemlerinin Gebelik

Abstract

Giriş: Intrauterin inseminasyon tekniği yardımcı üreme tedavilerinde en sık kullanılan yöntemlerden biridir. Semen parametreleri intrauterin inseminasyon yönteminin klinik başarısını etkileyen prognostik faktörlerin başında gelmektedir ve kaliteli spermlerin seçilimi için farklı sperm hazırlama teknikleri uygulanmaktadır.
Yöntemler: Bu retrospektif çalışmada 2012 ve 2020 yılları arasında hastanemiz infertilite merkezine başvuran 217 çift çalışma kapsamına alınmıştır. Intrauterin inseminasyon yönteminin uygulaması öncesi 178 hastadan alınan semen örnekleri mikroçip yöntemi ve 39 hastadan alınan semen örnekleri dansite gradiyent santrifügasyon yöntemi ile hazırlanmış ve spermlerin konsantrasyonu ve motilite özellikleri değerlendirilmiştir. Intrauterin inseminasyon uygulaması sonrası mikroçip ve dansite gradiyent santrifügasyon yöntemi ile hazırlanan sperm örneklerinin klinik gebelik başarısı değerlendirilmiştir.
Bulgular: Dansite gradiyent santrifügasyon yönteminde motil sperm (%79.46±12.48) mikroçip yöntemine göre (%57.48±20,24) daha yüksek oranda elde edilmiştir. Dansite gradiyent santrifügasyon grubuna dâhil olan hastaların %46.15’ünde klinik gebelik gözlenirken mikroçip grubunda %23.03 olarak belirlenmiştir. Buna karşın dansite gradiyent santrifügasyon grubu hastaların %27.78’inde gebelik devam ederken mikroçip grubunda devam eden gebelik %53.66 olarak belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak mikroçip yöntemine kıyasla dansite gradiyent santrifügasyon yönteminde motil sperm yüzdesi ve klinik gebelik görülme oranı artarken, devam eden gebelik oranlarında ciddi oranda azalma görülmektedir.
Sonuç: Mikroçip yöntemi hazırlanan sperm örnekleri intrauterin inseminasyon’nun klinik başarısı üzerine olumlu katkılar verdiği görülmektedir.

Keywords

İnfertilite, Intrauterin inseminasyon, Dansite gradiyent santrifügasyon, Mikroçip, Sperm hazırlama

References

• 1. Vander Borght M, Wyns C. Fertility and infertility: Definition and epidemiology. Clin Biochem 2018;62:2-10.
• 2. Carson SA, Kallen AN. Diagnosis and Management of Infertility: A Review. JAMA 2021;326:65-76.
• 3. Brugo-Olmedo S, Chillik C, Kopelman S. Definition and causes of infertility. Reprod Biomed Online 2001;2:41-53.
• 4. Borumandnia N, Alavi Majd H, Khadembashi N, Alaii H. Worldwide trend analysis of primary and secondary infertility rates over past decades: A cross-sectional study. Int J Reprod Biomed 2022;20:37-46.
• 5. Deshpande PS, Gupta AS. Causes and Prevalence of Factors Causing Infertility in a Public Health Facility. J Hum Reprod Sci 2019;12:287-93.
• 6. Healy DL, Trounson AO, Andersen AN. Female infertility: causes and treatment. Lancet 1994;343:1539-44.
• 7. Babakhanzadeh E, Nazari M, Ghasemifar S, Khodadadian A. Some of the Factors Involved in Male Infertility: A Prospective Review. Int J Gen Med 2020;13:29-41.
• 8. Huang JY, Rosenwaks Z. Assisted reproductive techniques. Methods Mol Biol 2014;1154:171-231.
• 9. Kumar N, Singh AK. Trends of male factor infertility, an important cause of infertility: A review of literature. J Hum Reprod Sci 2015;8:191-6.
• 10. Milardi D, Grande G, Sacchini D, et al. Male fertility and reduction in semen parameters: a single tertiary-care center experience. Int J Endocrinol 2012;2012:1-6.
• 11. Mortimer D. Sperm preparation methods. J Androl 2000;21:357-66.
• 12. Mortimer D, Mortimer ST. Methods of sperm preparation for assisted reproduction. Ann Acad Med Singap 1992;21:517-24.
• 13. Le MT, Dang HNT, Nguyen TV, Nguyen TTT, Nguyen QHV, Cao NT. Effects of sperm preparation techniques on sperm survivability and DNA fragmentation. J Int Med Res 2022;50:1-11.
• 14. Guler C, Melil S, Ozekici U, Donmez Cakil Y, Selam B, Cincik M. Sperm Selection and Embryo Development: A Comparison of the Density Gradient Centrifugation and Microfluidic Chip Sperm Preparation Methods in Patients with Astheno-Teratozoospermia. Life (Basel) 2021;11:1-9
• 15. Takeshima T, Yumura Y, Kuroda S, Kawahara T, Uemura H, Iwasaki A. Effect of density gradient centrifugation on reactive oxygen species in human semen. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2017;63:192-8.
• 16. Oshio S, Kaneko S, Iizuka R, Mohri H. Effects of gradient centrifugation on human sperm. Arch Androl 1987;19:85-93.
• 17. Olatunji O, More A. A Review of the Impact of Microfluidics Technology on Sperm Selection Technique. Cureus 2022;14:1-6.
• 18. Gode F, Bodur T, Gunturkun F, et al. Comparison of microfluid sperm sorting chip and density gradient methods for use in intrauterine insemination cycles. Fertil Steril 2019;112:842-8.
• 19. Allahbadia GN. Intrauterine Insemination: Fundamentals Revisited. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2017;67:385-92.
• 20. Duran HE, Morshedi M, Kruger T, Oehninger S. Intrauterine insemination: a systematic review on determinants of success. Hum Reprod Update 2002;8:373-84.
• 21. Starosta A, Gordon CE, Hornstein MD. Predictive factors for intrauterine insemination outcomes: a review. Fertil Res Pract 2020;6:1-11.
• 22. Haebe J, Martin J, Tekepety F, Tummon I, Shepherd K. Success of intrauterine insemination in women aged 40-42 years. Fertil Steril 2002;78:29-33.
• 23. Nesbit CB, Blanchette-Porter M, Esfandiari N. Ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination in women of advanced reproductive age: a systematic review of the literature. J Assist Reprod Genet 2022;39:1445-91.
• 24. Alorf F, Alani S, Steiner N, Dahan MH. How successful is intrauterine insemination after failed IVF? A study of 551 women. Reprod Biomed Online 2024;48:103684.
• 25. Wang X, Zhang Y, Sun HL, et al. Factors Affecting Artificial Insemination Pregnancy Outcome. Int J Gen Med 2021;14:3961-9.
• 26. Yu C, Bai L, Mei-Zhou J, Yu-Wang X, Chen L, Zhang J. Analysis of factors associated with IUI pregnancy outcomes in elderly and young patients. BMC Womens Health 2024;24:86.
• 27. Botchan A, Hauser R, Gamzu R, Yogev L, Paz G, Yavetz H. Results of 6139 artificial insemination cycles with donor spermatozoa. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2298-304.
• 28. Dickey RP, Pyrzak R, Lu PY, Taylor SN, Rye PH. Comparison of the sperm quality necessary for successful intrauterine insemination with World Health Organization threshold values for normal sperm. Fertil Steril 1999;71:684-9.
• 29. Yalti S, Gürbüz B, Sezer H, Celik S. Effects of semen characteristics on IUI combined with mild ovarian stimulation. Arch Androl 2004;50:239-46.
• 30. Badawy A, Elnashar A, Eltotongy M. Effect of sperm morphology and number on success of intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 2009;91:777-81.
• 31. Hammoud AO, Gibson M, Peterson MC, Carrell DT. Effect of sperm preparation techniques by density gradient on intra-individual variation of sperm motility. Arch Androl 2007;53:349-51.
• 32. 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;91:632-8.
• 33. Khodamoradi M, Rafizadeh Tafti S, Mousavi Shaegh,S.A, Aflatoonian B, Azimzadeh M, Khashayar P. Recent Microfluidic Innovations for Sperm Sorting. Chemosensors 2021;9,126.
• 34. Yaylalı A. Retrospective Comparison of the Efficiency of Sperm Preparation Methods in Intrauterine Insemination in Unexplained Infertility Cases. Acta Medica Alanya 2020;4:132-6.
• 35. Mirsanei JS, Sheibak N, Zandieh Z, et al. Microfluidic chips as a method for sperm selection improve fertilization rate in couples with fertilization failure. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2022;306:901-10.
• 36. Gode F, Bodur T, Gunturkun F, et al. Comparison of microfluid sperm sorting chip and density gradient methods for use in intrauterine insemination cycles. Fertil Steril 2019;112:842-8.