Journal of Human Reproductive Science
Home Ahead of Print Current Issue Archives
   Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size    Users online: 597

ORIGINAL ARTICLE Table of Contents   
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 143-149
Does choosing microfluidics for sperm sorting offer an advantage to improve clinical pregnancies in donor egg recipients?

1 IVF Lab, Mamata Fertility Hospital, Secunderabad, Telangana, India
2 Department of Reproductive Medicine, University Hospitals Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany

Correspondence Address:
Suhasini Donthi
Mamata Fertility Hospital, 91-1-192, St. Mary's Road, Opp. Prashant Theatre, Secunderabad - 500 003, Telangana
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_15_22

Rights and Permissions

Background: Microfluidics (MF), an advanced sperm sorting technology results in the extraction of spermatozoa with higher DNA integrity and lower DNA damage compared to existing conventional sperm sorting methods. Aims: The aim of the present study is to assess the efficiency of MF and to isolate the best spermatozoa for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) over the density gradient (DG) technique. Settings and Design: We recruited couples who choose the oocyte donation programme for this study to eliminate confounding factors associated with oocyte quality. Materials and Methods: Sperm was processed by MF (n = 180) and DG (n = 151). ICSI was performed and positive pregnancy, miscarriage and clinical pregnancy rates were compared. Statistical Analysis Used: All variables were analysed using Graph Pad Prism 5. The unpaired two-tailed t-test was used to assess the significance. A value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There was no significant difference in pregnancy rates between the groups. However, a clear demarcation is seen in terms of clinical pregnancy rates, where the DG group achieved higher clinical pregnancies (91.7%) compared to the MF group (80.7%). Further, we compared miscarriage rates and biochemical pregnancies, and found a significantly higher miscarriage and biochemical pregnancy rate in the MF group (14.5% and 4%, respectively) compared to the DG group (6% and 1%, respectively). Conclusions: Based on the available literature, we anticipated a higher clinical pregnancy rate with MF compared with conventional processing. Our results show MF does not have any add-on positive effect on clinical pregnancy rate.

Print this article  Email this article

  Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
   Citation Manager
  Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded134    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal