4.6 Review

Effects of advanced selection methods on sperm quality and ART outcome: a systematic review

期刊

HUMAN REPRODUCTION UPDATE
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 719-733

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmr032

关键词

assisted reproductive techniques; hyaluronic acid binding; IMSI; magnetic cell sorting; sperm selection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Current routine semen preparation techniques do not inclusively target all intrinsic sperm characteristics that may impact the fertilization potential. In order to address these characteristics, several methods have been recently developed and applied to sperm selection. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature describing these advanced sperm selection methods focusing on their anticipated benefits on sperm quality and assisted reproductive technique (ART) outcome. METHODS: Systematic literature review was conducted by means of a Medline literature search. Sperm quality parameters assessed included: motility, morphology, viability, DNA integrity, apoptosis and maturity. ART outcomes assessed included: fertilization, embryo quality, pregnancy, abortion and live birth rates. RESULTS: A total of 44 studies were identified describing four advanced sperm selection methods based on: (i) surface charge (electrophoresis and zeta potential), (ii) apoptosis (magnetic cell sorting and glass wool), (iii) membrane maturity (hyaluronic acid binding) and (iv) ultramorphology (high magnification). Selection of high-quality sperm including improvements in DNA integrity, resulted from the application of these methods. Fertilization and pregnancy rates showed improvement following some of the advanced sperm selection techniques. CONCLUSIONS: While some of the advanced sperm selection methods are of value in specific clinical ART settings, others are in need of further evaluation. More clinical studies on safety and efficacy are needed before the implementation of advanced sperm selection methods could be universally recommended in ART.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据