Experience of our clinic in intrauterine insemination cycles made with microfluidic sperm sorting chips

Sipahi, Mehmet; Tosun, Şebnem Alanya; Tutar, Sadettin Oguzhan

doi:10.46328/aejog.v3i1.81

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We estimated miscarriage rates from studies that reported clinical pregnancies, ongoing pregnancies, and live births in three studies [34,41], and in two additional studies [34,41]. We reached out to 21 primary authors to request their raw data [29,34,35,41,44], receiving responses from three [29,39,41].…”

Section: Synthesis Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does microfluidic sperm selection improve clinical pregnancy and miscarriage outcomes in assisted reproductive treatments? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ferreira Aderaldo,

da Silva Maranhão,

Ferreira Lanza

2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The microfluidic sperm selection (MFSS) device has emerged as a promising adjunct in assisted reproduction treatments (ART). It employs mechanisms of biomimicry based on the microanatomy of the female reproductive tract through strategies like chemotaxis and rheotaxis. Numerous studies assert improvements in ART outcomes with the use of MFSS, often attributed to the theoretical reduction in sperm DNA damage compared to other techniques. However, these attributed benefits lack validation through large-scale clinical trials, and there is no significant evidence of enhanced assisted reproductive treatments (ART) outcomes. Objective To evaluate whether the utilization of MFSS enhances clinical pregnancy results and abortion outcomes in couples undergoing ART compared to standard sperm selection techniques for Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI). We also assessed laboratory outcomes as a supplementary analysis. Search methods We conducted searches across databases including PubMed, NIH, LILACS, CENTRAL, Crossref, Scopus, and OpenAlex. A total of 1,255 records were identified. From these, 284 duplicate records were eliminated, and an additional 895 records were excluded due to their association with patent applications, diagnostic tests, forensic analyses, or irrelevance to the research focus. Among the initially eligible 76 studies, 63 were excluded, encompassing abstracts, studies lacking adequate control groups, and ongoing clinical trials. Ultimately, 13 studies were selected for inclusion in the ensuing meta-analysis. Results Regarding clinical pregnancy, we assessed a total of 868 instances of clinical pregnancies out of 1,646 embryo transfers. Regarding miscarriage, we examined 95 cases of pregnancy loss among the 598 confirmed clinical pregnancies in these studies. Conclusion The utilization of MFSS demonstrates marginal positive outcomes compared to standard sperm selection techniques, without statistical significance in any of the analyses. Broader implications This study conducted the first meta-analysis to evaluate clinical pregnancy rates, miscarriage rates, and laboratory results associated with the use of MFSS compared to standard sperm selection techniques. We have also listed potentially eligible studies for future inclusion. It’s important to emphasize the need for multicenter studies with standardized parameters to attain a more robust clarification of this issue.

show abstract

Section: Synthesis Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does microfluidic sperm selection improve clinical pregnancy and miscarriage outcomes in assisted reproductive treatments? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ferreira Aderaldo,

da Silva Maranhão,

Ferreira Lanza

2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While microfluidics remains the latest development in the analysis and selection of high-quality sperm, with its smallscale size and microenvironment that mimics the mechanisms Processing and selection of healthy sperm is essential for a successful pregnancy and healthy offspring. Sipahi et al [21] , in 133 patients who had undergone IUI with microfluidic sorting, demonstrated that the clinical pregnancy rate was 19.5%, with the highest rate in younger patients. Although not statistically significant, Yaylali and colleagues found the highest clinical pregnancy rate with the use of MSS (22.73%) compared to SWP (15.91%) and the density-gradient (17.39%) methods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of sperm separation methods before intrauterine insemination on pregnancy outcomes and live birth rates: Differences between the swim-up and microfluidic chip techniques

Feyzioglu,

Avul

2023

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various sperm preparation techniques have been developed to obtain functionally, genetically and morphologically high-quality competent spermatozoa for use in assisted reproductive technologies, which may affect treatment options and thus pregnancy outcomes and live birth rates. We aimed to compare swim-up washing procedure (SWP) and microfluidics sperm sorting (MSS) with regard to sperm separation, pregnancy outcomes and live birth rates in infertile couples receiving intrauterine insemination. A total of 326 couples with unexplained infertility who underwent intrauterine insemination were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study and were divided into 2 groups according to sperm preparation technique. The MSS and SWP methods were used to prepare sperm in 178 and 148 patients, respectively. The median sperm concentration reduced significantly from 51 (30–100) million/mL to 20 (10–40) million/mL in the MSS group, and from 45 (26–80) million/mL to 25 (11–48) million/mL in the SWP group (both P < .001). Median motility increased significantly from 30.43 ± 17.79 to 57.48 ± 20.24 in the MSS, and from 32.89 ± 13.92 to 43.91 ± 20.11 in SWP (both P < .001). There was a difference between groups after preparation regarding sperm concentration (better with SWP) and motility (better with MSS) (P = .018 and P < .001, respectively). A total of 86 (26.4%) pregnancies were observed in participants and the clinical pregnancy rate was 23% in the MSS group and 30.4% in the SWP group (P = .133). Fifty-one infants were born alive and a great majority (n = 47) were delivered at term. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that higher duration of infertility was independently associated with lower live birth success (odds ratio: 0.811, 95% confidence interval: 0.662–0.996; P = .045). Other variables, including female age, type and reason of infertility, number of cycles, and sperm motility and concentration, were found to be nonsignificant (P > .05). We observed nonsignificant worse reproductive results using microfluid sperm selection in comparison to the pellet swim-up technique (live birth rate = 12% vs 20%). Our evidence is of limited quality due to the retrospective design of this study and sufficiently powered RCTs are needed to evaluate whether sperm selection based using a microfluidic chip is better, similar, or worse than the pellet swim-up technique.

show abstract

“…Blastocyst culture has also been used to select the most viable embryos in a cohort, decreasing the number of embryos transplanted and, as a result, decreasing the number of multiple gestations [9]. Microfluidic sperm sorting is a novel method that uses a microfluidic device with four chambers (A, B, C, and D); sperms are put in one chamber and a buffer solution in another, with the sperms traveling through microchannels [10]. The microfluidic device is made of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), Pyrex, silicone, quartz, and borosilicate glass.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Microfluidic sperm sorting is a novel method that uses a microfluidic device with four chambers (A, B, C, and D); sperms are put in one chamber and a buffer solution in another, with the sperms traveling through microchannels [ 10 ]. The microfluidic device is made of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), Pyrex, silicone, quartz, and borosilicate glass.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Causes of Infertility: Diagnosis and Management With Microfluidic Sperm Sorter

Chauhan¹,

More²,

Shrivastava³

et al. 2022

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This case study refers to a three-and-a-half-year married couple who visited an infertility clinic and are facing infertility for two-and-a-half years. They started in vitro fertilization/assisted reproduction technology (IVF/ART) procedures from December 2021. In 2019, the couple underwent infertility therapy in Wardha, India, including three intra-uterine insemination (IUI) treatments which failed. The couple was then recommended the intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) procedure in which the semen sample was separated using a microfluidic sperm sorter for separating good quality sperms. There was no past medical history of both of the partners. Since she was infertile, the desire to have a child was extremely strong. Sadness, helplessness, bewilderment, and frustration are all common feelings associated with infertility. The left fallopian tube delays spillage in females and oligoasthenozoospermia in males; women were detected with secondary infertility and male sperm samples were sorted using a microfluidic sperm sorter and fertilized frozen oocytes for ICSI. As the male partner, in this case, had oligoasthenozoospermia, he was prescribed multivitamins and other medications. After ICSI, the blastocyst formation was good with the use of a microfluidic sperm sorter.

show abstract

Experience of our clinic in intrauterine insemination cycles made with microfluidic sperm sorting chips

Cited by 3 publications

References 12 publications

Does microfluidic sperm selection improve clinical pregnancy and miscarriage outcomes in assisted reproductive treatments? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Does microfluidic sperm selection improve clinical pregnancy and miscarriage outcomes in assisted reproductive treatments? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Effects of sperm separation methods before intrauterine insemination on pregnancy outcomes and live birth rates: Differences between the swim-up and microfluidic chip techniques

Causes of Infertility: Diagnosis and Management With Microfluidic Sperm Sorter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About