Eliminating the effect of pathomorphologically formed sperm on resulting gravidity using the intracytoplasmic sperm injection method

Blahová,Eva; Máchal,Jan; Máchal,Ladislav; Milaković,Irena; Hanuláková,Šárka

doi:10.3892/etm.2014.1522

Eliminating the effect of pathomorphologically formed sperm on resulting gravidity using the intracytoplasmic sperm injection method

Authors:
- Eva Blahová
- Jan Máchal
- Ladislav Máchal
- Irena Milaković
- Šárka Hanuláková
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Animal Reproduction, Mendel University in Brno, Brno 61300, Czech Republic, Department of Pathological Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno 62500, Czech Republic
Published online on: February 6, 2014 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2014.1522
Pages: 1000-1004

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to test whether it is possible to eliminate a high percentage of morphologically abnormal sperm in male ejaculate by assisted reproduction using the intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) method. Treatment success was evaluated by comparing fertilization, clinical pregnancy and reproduction rates between males with heavy teratospermia (≤1% morphologically normal spermatozoa) and males with a higher percentage (>1%) of normal sperm. In total, 174 patients who had previously undergone 174 ICSI cycles (1 per each pair) were evaluated retrospectively. In the group of patients with heavily impaired sperm morphology (n=37), the percentage of normal spermatozoa was ≤1%. In the second group, males with >1% normal spermatozoa (n=137) were considered as patients with mildly impaired sperm morphology. The results of partner fertilization in these two groups were compared and a lower number of fertilized oocytes was identified in the patients with heavily impaired sperm morphology (P=0.038). However, neither the gravidity nor the take-home baby rates of the partners differed between the patients with mildly and heavily impaired sperm morphology. Trends opposite to that for fertilization were observed for gravidity and delivery [odds ratio (OR), 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.29‑1.30; OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.26‑1.24, respectively]. This indicates that the lower number of fertilized oocytes was not associated with the overall outcome of fertilization and that patients with heavily impaired sperm morphology experience the same benefit from ICSI as patients with mildly impaired sperm morphology.

View Figures

View References

1	Parinaud J, Mieusset R, Vieitez G, Labal B and Richoilley G: Influence of sperm parameters on embryo quality. Fertil Steril. 60:888–892. 1993.PubMed/NCBI
2	Braude P, Bolton V and Moore S: Human gene expression first occurs between the four-and eight-cell stages of preimplantation development. Nature. 332:459–461. 1988. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Tesarik J, Greco E and Mendoza C: Late, but not early, paternal effect on human embryo development is related to sperm DNA fragmentation. Hum Reprod. 19:611–615. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Tesarik J: Paternal effects on cell division in the human preimplantation embryo. Reprod Biomed Online. 10:370–375. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Cohen-Bacrie P: Sperm quality and selection. J Gynecol Obstet Bio Reprod (Paris). 37(Suppl 1): S4–S8. 2008.(In French).
6	Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P and Van Steirteghem AC: Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet. 340:17–18. 1992. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Van Steirteghem AC, Nagy Z, Joris H, Lui J, Staessen C, Smitz J, Wisanto A and Devroey P: High fertilization and implantation rates after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 8:1061–1066. 1993.
8	Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI, Sattar MA and Amin YM: Intracytoplasmic sperm injection and conventional in vitro fertilization for sibling oocytes in cases of unexplained infertility and borderline semen. J Assist Reprod Genet. 13:38–42. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI and Amin YM: The role of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in the treatment of patients with borderline semen. Hum Reprod. 10:2829–2830. 1995.PubMed/NCBI
10	Nagy ZP, Liu J, Joris H, Verheyen G, Tournaye H, Camus M, Derde MC, Devroey P and Van Steirteghem AC: The result of intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not related to any of the three basic sperm parameters. Hum Reprod. 10:1123–1129. 1995.PubMed/NCBI
11	Cohen J, Alikani M, Munné S and Palermo G: Micromanipulation in clinical managment of fertility disorders. Semin Reprod Endocrinol. 12:151–168. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar
12	Riedel HH, Hübner F, Ensslen SC, Bieniek KW and Grillo M: Minimal andrological requirements for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 4(8 Suppl): 73–77. 1989. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Enginsu ME, Dumoulin JC, Pieters MH, Evers JL and Geraedts JP: Predictive value of morphologically normal sperm concentration in the medium for in-vitro fertilization. Int J Androl. 16:113–120. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Petersen CG, Mauri AL, Ferreira R, Baruffi RL and Franco Júnior JG: Embryo selection by the first cleavage parameter between 25 and 27 hours after ICSI. J Assist Reprod Genet. 18:209–212. 2001.PubMed/NCBI
15	Gardner DK and Lane M: Culture and selection of viable blastocysts: a feasible proposition for human IVF? Hum Reprod Update. 3:367–382. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Lucas H, Lammers J, Pfeffer J, Aknin I, Carré-Pigeon F, Jafou N, Paulus JM and Sifer C: Conventional IVF versus ICSI in sibling oocytes: a French experience analysis for BLEFCO. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 38:515–520. 2010.(In French).
17	Shoukir Y, Chardonnens D, Campana A and Sakkas D: Blastocyst development from supernumerary embryos after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a paternal influence? Hum Reprod. 13:1632–1637. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Aytoz A, Camus M, Tournaye H, Bonduelle M, Van Steirteghem A and Devroey P: Outcome of pregnancies after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and the effect of sperm origin and quality on this outcome. Fertil Steril. 70:500–505. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Palermo GD, Schlegel PN, Hariprashad JJ, Ergün B, Mielnik A, Zaninovic N, Veeck LL and Rosenwaks Z: Fertilization and pregnancy outcome with intracytoplasmic sperm injection for azoospermic men. Hum Reprod. 14:741–748. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Coetzee K, Kruge TF and Lombard CJ: Predictive value of normal sperm morphology: a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update. 4:73–82. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Duran EH, Gürgan T, Günalp S, Enginsu ME, Yarali H and Ayhan A: A logistic regression model including DNA status and morphology of spermatozoa for prediction of fertilization in vitro. Hum Reprod. 13:1235–1239. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar
22	Mansour RT, Aboulghar MA, Serour GI, Amin YM and Ramzi AM: The effect of sperm parameters on the outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 64:982–986. 1995.PubMed/NCBI
23	Küpker W, Schulze W and Diedrich K: Ultrastructure of gametes and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: the significance of sperm morphology. Hum Reprod. 13(Suppl 1): 99–106. 1998.PubMed/NCBI
24	Lundin K, Söderlund B and Hamberger L: The relationship between sperm morphology and rates of fertilization, pregnancy and spontaneous abortion in an in-vitro fertilization/intracytoplazmic sperm injection programme. Hum Reprod. 12:2676–2681. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Svalander P, Jakobsson AH, Forsberg AS, Bengtsson AC and Wikland M: The outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection is unrelated to ‘strict criteria’ sperm morphology. Hum Reprod. 11:1019–1022. 1996.
26	De Vos A: Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Hum Reprod. 15(Suppl 4): 59–64. 2000.PubMed/NCBI
27	Fishel S, Aslam I, Lisi F, Rinaldi L, Timson J, Jacobson M, Gobetz L, Green S, Campbell A and Lisi R: Should ICSI be the treatment of choice for all cases of in-vitro conception? Hum Reprod. 15:1278–1283. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	French DB, Sabanegh ES Jr, Goldfarb J and Desai N: Does severe teratozoospermia affect blastocyst formation, live birth rate, and other clinical outcome parameters in ICSI cycles? Fertil Steril. 93:1097–1103. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
29	Bonduelle M, Camus M, De Vos A, Staessen C, Tournaye H, Van Assche E, Verheyen G, Devroey P, Liebaers I and Van Steirteghem A: Seven years of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and follow-up of 1987 subsequent children. Hum Reprod. 14(Suppl 1): 243–264. 1999.PubMed/NCBI
30	Hansen M, Kurinczuk JJ, Bower C and Webb S: The risk of major birth defects after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization. New Engl J Med. 346:725–730. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Bonduelle M, Wennerholm UB, Loft A, Tarlatzis BC, Peters C, Henriet S, Mau C, Victorin-Cederquist A, Van Steirteghem A, Balaska A, Emberson JR and Sutcliffe AG: A multi-centre cohort study of the physical health of 5-year-old children conceived after intracytoplasmic sperm injection, in vitro fertilization and natural conception. Hum Reprod. 20:413–419. 2005.
32	Davies MJ, Moore VM, Willson DK, Van Essen P, Priest K, Scott H, Haan EA and Chan A: Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. New Engl J Med. 366:1803–1813. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	Katalinic A, Rösch C and Ludwig M; German ICSI Follow-Up Study Group. Pregnancy course and outcome after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a controlled, prospective cohort study. Fertil Steril. 81:1604–1616. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
34	Wennerholm UB, Söderström-Anttila V, Bergh C, Aittomäki K, Hazekamp J, Nygren KG, Selbing A and Loft A: Children born after cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes: a systematic review of outcome data. Hum Reprod. 24:2158–2172. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
35	Kirkegaard K, Agerholm IE and Ingerslev HJ: Time-lapse monitoring as a tool for clinical embryo assessment. Hum Reprod. 27:1277–1285. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI