4.4 Article

Use of microfluidic sperm extraction chips as an alternative method in patients with recurrent in vitro fertilisation failure

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
Volume 36, Issue 7, Pages 1423-1429

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-019-01480-3

Keywords

IVF; Microfluidic chip; Sperm; DNA fragmentation

Funding

  1. Inonu University Research Fund [2016/147]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose It is known that sperm preparation techniques in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) are intended to select the best-quality sperm. The aim of this study is to compare sperm the density gradient method and microfluidic chip (Fertile Plus) method in infertile patients by analysing fertilisation rates, pregnancy rates, and sperm morphology and DNA fragmentation rates posed by these two methods. Methods Using semen samples obtained from the patients, sperms were prepared with gradient (n = 312) and microfluidic chip methods (n = 116). Fertilisation and pregnancy rates were compared in the first time and in the recurrent IVF trial patients. In addition, the morphology and DNA fragmentation comparison of sperm samples were evaluated by Toluidine blue in situ chemical staining method. Results There was no statistically significant difference between fertilisation and pregnancy rates when compared with study groups in first-time IVF treatment patients. However, in recurrent IVF failure patients, there was a significant difference in fertilisation rates but no statistically significant difference was found in pregnancy rates. The microfluidic chip method significantly decreased sperm DNA fragmentation index according to density gradient method. Conclusions Microfluidic chip method may be recommended in patients with recurrent unsuccessful in vitro trials. The sperm DNA fragmentation test prior to the treatment will be helpful in selecting the appropriate sperm-washing method.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available