No abstract

Background: The National Health and Family Planning Commission of China (NHFPCC) issued the “Measures for the Management of Human Sperm Banks,” which was revised in 2003 and is still in effect today. One of the standard guidelines is that potential donors undergo laboratory testing to exclude infectious and genetic diseases and karyotype analysis. However, patient demands for donor genetic testing have also increased, and only karyotype analysis to exclude genetic diseases is not sufficient to meet these demands.Materials and Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to twenty-seven sperm banks to examine donor genetic screening practices at sperm banks in China and to evaluate the qualifications and skills of genetic counselors at the banks. Twenty-six human sperm banks responded to a 32-question survey about their current practices related to genetic testing of sperm donors.Results: The 26 sperm banks reported that all qualified sperm donors undergo karyotype analysis; 22 banks (84.6%) collected three generations of family history from each qualified sperm donor; 10 (38.5%) reported that they attempted to accommodate special requests from donor semen recipients for particular genetic tests. Only 2 of the 26 (7.7%) sperm banks reported that they performed whole-exome sequencing. At all the sperm banks, consent for genetic testing was obtained as part of the overall contract for sperm donors. Nineteen (73.1%) sperm banks had genetic counselors on their staff, while six (23.1%) had no genetic counselors on their staff but had access to genetic counselors at the hospital. Only one (3.8%) sperm bank had no genetic counselors on their staff or at the hospital. Conclusions: The need for larger scale genetic testing of donors and recipients and an extensive panel of genetic tests specific to the Chinese population. Additionally, professionally trained geneticists must be employed as genetic counsellors so that the results of genetic tests and their implications can be explained to donors.

Background: Many cryopreservation carriers have been introduced to freeze rare human spermatozoa, however, these carriers relative attributes and comparative effectivenesses have not yet been systematically studied.Objectives: Is the micro-straw cryopreservation carrier more effective for cryopreserving rare human spermatozoa compared with the Cryoplus and a new micro-straw (LSL straw) carriers?Materials and methods: This study involves 93 samples from healthy sperm donors and 40 samples from patients diagnosed with oligospermia, asthenospermia, oligoasthenospermia, or obstructive azoospermia. We determined the optimal freeze-thaw protocol for the Micro-straw carrier. The post-thaw survival rate, normal sperm morphology, acrosome integrity, and DNA fragmentation for Micro-straw, Cryoplus, and LSL carriers were then determined. Finally, we verified the effects of freezing using these carriers by comparing the qualities of post-thaw spermatozoa from patients. Results:The highest total motility (TM) and progressive motility (PR) survival rates were obtained by placing the Micro-straw at 1 cm above the LN 2 surface for 70 s during freezing and in a 42 • C water bath for 40 s during thawing. No differences were observed in the PR survival rate, acrosome integrity, and DNA fragmentation of the post-thaw spermatozoa from the three carriers. However, the normal morphology rate of spermatozoa frozen using the Micro-straw carrier was higher than for the Cryoplus carrier (p < 0.05), and the TM survival rate of spermatozoa frozen with the Micro-straw was higher than that for the LSL carrier (p < 0.01). In verification tests, there were no significant differences in the quality of post-thaw spermatozoa cryopreserved using these carriers for both rare spermatozoa or epididymal sperm.Discussion and conclusion: Micro-straw, Cryoplus, and LSL carriers are all efficient means of freezing rare human spermatozoa. However, the Micro-straw carrier is more economical, safe, and user-friendly.

In the 1960s, sperm cryopreservation was developed as a method to preserve fertility. Currently, techniques for the cryopreservation of human spermatozoa have been widely used in assisted reproduction. However, although sperm cryobiology has made notable achievements, the optimal method for the recovery of viable spermatozoa after cryopreservation remains elusive. Postthawing sperm quality can be affected by cryoprotectants, ice formation, storage conditions, and osmotic stress during the freezing process. This review discusses recent advances in different cryopreservation techniques, cryoprotectants, and freezing and thawing methods during cryopreservation and new indications for the use of cryopreserved spermatozoa.

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of donor in vitro fertilization (IVF-D) and donor artificial insemination (AI-D) in clinical outcomes, risks, and costs. Methods: This study analyzed the cycle changes and clinical outcomes in 20,910 IVF-D and 16,850 AI-D cycles between 2013 and 2021 in the Reproductive and Genetic Hospital of CITIC-Xiangya. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to evaluate the costs per couple and per live birth cycle in the two treatment groups. Results: IVF-D had higher pregnancy and live birth rates than AI-D (p < 0.001). The cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates for three AI-D cycles were 41.01% and 32.42%, respectively, higher than the rates for one or two AI-D cycles. The multiple birth and birth defect rate of AI-D was lower than that of IVF-D significantly. IVF-D mean cost per couple was higher than that of AI-D (CNY32,575 vs. CNY11,062, p < 0.001), with a mean cost difference of CNY21,513 (95% confidence interval, CNY20,517–22,508). The mean costs per live birth cycle for IVF-D and AI-D were CNY49,411 and CNY31,246, respectively. Conclusion: AI-D is more cost-effective and poses a lower risk for infertility couples than IVF-D, and patients should undergo three AI-D cycles to obtain the highest success rate.