Sperm Selection Using Three Semen Processing Techniques

Ramos, Vivian Berkenbroch; Cipriani, Daniela da Cunha; Araújo, Eduardo Schuchowsky; Salvador, Rafael Alonso; Senn, A.; Frajblat, Marcel; Amaral, Vera Lucia Lângaro

doi:10.5935/1518-0557.20150043

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the studies, comparing MS where cells sediment by gravity to the bottom of a tube ( Figure 1) and another sperm selection method, comparisons were made against either DGC or SU, but not to their combination. These papers indicated improved parameters of concentration, motility, and morphology [Ramos et al 2015;Sanchez et al 1996;Yavetz et al 1996;Yener et al 1990].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparative evaluation of migration sedimentation method for sperm preparation

Kiratli

Yüncü

Köse

et al. 2017

Systems Biology in Reproductive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of semen preparation using the migration-sedimentation (MS) method was evaluated, and compared to density gradient centrifuge and swim-up combination (DGC+SU). Sperm selection using MS is based on motility, thus, deleterious effects for which centrifugation has been blamed, are believed to be avoided. Normozoospermic male patients who had more than 10% forward progressive motile sperm in their ejaculate were included in the study. Spermatozoa selected by two different methods were investigated and compared according to sperm motility, concentration, morphology, vitality, DNA fragmentation, and presence of persistent histones. The concentration and motility of sperm in the MS group was improved when compared to the DGC+SU group, but the difference between groups was not significant. The proportion of sperm with normal morphology was found to be 12.19 ± 6.45% vs. 10.67 ± 5.44%, vitality rate was 74.09 ± 16.65% vs. 70.45 ± 16.78%, DNA fragmentation rate was 3.91 ± 3.96%, vs. 2.95 ± 3.33%, presence of persistent histone proportion was 10.59 ± 13.40%, vs. 8.86 ± 7.89% in DGC+SU and MS groups respectively, without significance. The simple technique avoids centrifuge-based damage.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…It is reported that sperm with significantly better morphology can be selected in MS, when compared to both DGC and SU separately in fertile and subfertile populations [Gabriel and Vawda 1993]. Ramos et al [2015] also found comparable morphology scores when MS was compared to SU only.…”

Section: Morphologymentioning

confidence: 91%

A comparative evaluation of migration sedimentation method for sperm preparation

Kiratli

Yüncü

Köse

et al. 2017

Systems Biology in Reproductive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Swim up technique is based on motility and consequently dependent on a sufficient number of motile spermatozoa in the sample (Ramos et al, 2015), sperm recovery is less than other techniques of sperm separation but sperm isolated have better motility (Morshedi et al, 2003;G. Ricci et al, 2009;Yamanaka et al, 2016).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%