4.5 Article

Sperm-friendly lubricant: Fact or fiction

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14136

关键词

coital lubricants; egg white; Optilube (R); Pre-seed (R); sperm motility; sperm-friendly; Yes baby (R)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed the effects of different lubricants on sperm motility. The results showed that all lubricants, except for egg white, significantly reduced sperm forward progression. Additionally, there were significant differences in sperm motility between different commercially available lubricants.
Objective: To assess the effects of sperm-friendly coital lubricants on sperm motility. Methods: This study compared the effects of five lubricants (Optilube (R), Pre-Seed (R), Yes Baby (R), olive oil, and egg white) on sperm motility in 60 normozoospermic semen samples obtained from men attending a private fertility clinic. Samples were exposed to each of the lubricants, with untreated samples serving as controls, and were examined microscopically at four defined time-points from 2 to 72 h after liquefaction. Sperm motility was graded according to World Health Organization criteria. Results: With the exception of egg white, all lubricants caused significant (P < 0.001) reductions in sperm forward progression compared with untreated controls until 24 h after liquefaction. Furthermore, between-group comparisons of the commercially available lubricants revealed statistically significant differences in forward progression motility: Pre-Seed (R) was superior to Optilube (R) (P < 0.001), which in turn was superior to Yes Baby (R) (P < 0.001) at 2-4 h after exposure. Significance (P < 0.001) between Pre-Seed (R) and Yes Baby (R) was maintained until 24 h. Conclusion: Although spermatozoa exposed to Pre-Seed (R) demonstrated greater motility than spermatozoa exposed to Yes Baby (R), claims that these lubricants are sperm-friendly were refuted. Conversely, egg white was shown to be a sperm-friendly lubricant for couples who are trying to conceive.

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

4.5
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