Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection outcomes: the role of sperm preparation techniques

  • Edson BorgesJr.Email author
  • Amanda Souza Setti
  • Livia Vingris
  • Rita de Cassia Savio Figueira
  • Daniela Paes de Almeida Ferreira Braga
  • Assumpto IaconelliJr.
Technological Innovations



To compare the results of intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI) between cycles in which the swim-up (SUP) or the density gradient centrifugation (DGC) techniques were used for sperm preparation.


We evaluated 70 IMSI cycles performed in women with age ≤ 37 years, undergoing IMSI as result of male factor. The couples were divided into two groups: DGC group (n = 26) and SUP group (n = 44). The groups were compared with regard to IMSI outcomes.


There were no significant differences between SUP and DGC groups regarding the number of follicles, oocytes, mature oocytes, oocyte yield and mature oocyte rate. Fertilization rate and high-quality embryos rate on day 5 of development were similar between SUP and DGC groups. Implantation, pregnancy and miscarriage rates were not statistically different between SUP and DGC groups (28.8 vs 33.3 %, 46.2 vs 57.1 % and 8.3 vs 4.2 %, respectively).


Both the SUP and the DGC techniques recover improved sperm fractions and result in similar IMSI outcomes. Further randomized trials analyzing both the quality of sperm through MSOME and the IMSI outcomes are needed to elucidate the role of sperm preparation techniques and morphology on IMSI outcomes.


MSOME IMSI Sperm Swim-up Density gradient 


  1. 1.
    Allamaneni SS, Agarwal A, Rama S, Ranganathan P, Sharma RK. Comparative study on density gradients and swim-up preparation techniques utilizing neat and cryopreserved spermatozoa. Asian J Androl. 2005;7:86–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alvarez JG, Lasso JL, Blasco L, Nunez RC, Heyner S, Caballero PP, et al. Centrifugation of human spermatozoa induces sublethal damage; separation of human spermatozoa from seminal plasma by a dextran swim-up procedure without centrifugation extends their motile lifetime. Hum Reprod. 1993;8:1087–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartoov B, Berkovitz A, Eltes F, Kogosowski A, Menezo Y, Barak Y. Real-time fine morphology of motile human sperm cells is associated with IVF-ICSI outcome. J Androl. 2002;23:1–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berkovitz A, Eltes F, Lederman H, Peer S, Ellenbogen A, Feldberg B, et al. How to improve IVF-ICSI outcome by sperm selection. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:634–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berkovitz A, Eltes F, Yaari S, Katz N, Barr I, Fishman A, et al. The morphological normalcy of the sperm nucleus and pregnancy rate of intracytoplasmic injection with morphologically selected sperm. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:185–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boomsma CM, Heineman MJ, Cohlen BJ, Farquhar C. Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;CD004507.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Almeida Ferreira Braga DP, Setti AS, Figueira RC, Nichi M, Martinhago CD, Iaconelli Jr. A, Borges Jr. E, Sperm organelle morphologic abnormalities: contributing factors and effects on intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles outcomes. Urology. 2011;78:786–91.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Canale D, Giorgi PM, Gasperini M, Pucci E, Barletta D, Gasperi M, et al. Inter and intra-individual variability of sperm morphology after selection with three different techniques: layering, swimup from pellet and percoll. J Endocrinol Invest. 1994;17:729–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Vos A, Van De Velde H, Joris H, Verheyen G, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A. Influence of individual sperm morphology on fertilization, embryo morphology, and pregnancy outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2003;79:42–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dodson WC, Moessner J, Miller J, Legro RS, Gnatuk CL. A randomized comparison of the methods of sperm preparation for intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 1998;70:574–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Enciso M, Iglesias M, Galan I, Sarasa J, Gosalvez A, Gosalvez J. The ability of sperm selection techniques to remove single- or double-strand DNA damage. Asian J Androl. 2011;13:764–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Figueira Rde C, Braga DP, Setti AS, Iaconelli Jr A, Borges Jr E. Morphological nuclear integrity of sperm cells is associated with preimplantation genetic aneuploidy screening cycle outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:990–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franco Jr JG, Mauri AL, Petersen CG, Massaro FC, Silva LF, Felipe V, et al. Large nuclear vacuoles are indicative of abnormal chromatin packaging in human spermatozoa. Int J Androl. 2012;35:46–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gardner DK, Schoolcraft WB, eds. In vitro culture of human blastocysts. In: Toward Reproductive Certainty: Fertility and Genetics Beyond. London: Parthenon Publishing London; 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garolla A, Fortini D, Menegazzo M, De Toni L, Nicoletti V, Moretti A, et al. High-power microscopy for selecting spermatozoa for ICSI by physiological status. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17:610–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henkel R. Sperm preparation: state-of-the-art–physiological aspects and application of advanced sperm preparation methods. Asian J Androl. 2012;14:260–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Knez K, Tomazevic T, Zorn B, Vrtacnik-Bokal E, Virant-Klun I. Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection improves development and quality of preimplantation embryos in teratozoospermia patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kupker W, al-Hasani S, Schulze W, Kuhnel W, Schill T, Felberbaum R, et al. Morphology in intracytoplasmic sperm injection: preliminary results. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1995;12:620–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lundin K, Soderlund B, Hamberger L. The relationship between sperm morphology and rates of fertilization, pregnancy and spontaneous abortion in an in-vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection programme. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:2676–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mansour RT, Aboulghar MA, Serour GI, Amin YM, Ramzi AM. The effect of sperm parameters on the outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 1995;64:982–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Monqaut AL, Zavaleta C, Lopez G, Lafuente R, Brassesco M. Use of high-magnification microscopy for the assessment of sperm recovered after two different sperm processing methods. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:277–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nagy ZP, Liu J, Joris H, Verheyen G, Tournaye H, Camus M, et al. The result of intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not related to any of the three basic sperm parameters. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:1123–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oehninger S, Acosta AA, Kruger T, Veeck LL, Flood J, Jones Jr HW. Failure of fertilization in in vitro fertilization: the “occult” male factor. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1988;5:181–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pousette A, Akerlof E, Rosenborg L, Fredricsson B. Increase in progressive motility and improved morphology of human spermatozoa following their migration through Percoll gradients. Int J Androl. 1986;9:1–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sakkas D, Manicardi GC, Tomlinson M, Mandrioli M, Bizzaro D, Bianchi PG, et al. The use of two density gradient centrifugation techniques and the swim-up method to separate spermatozoa with chromatin and nuclear DNA anomalies. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1112–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seracchioli R, Porcu E, Flamigni C. The diagnosis of male infertility by semen quality. Sperm morphology is not the only criterion of male infertility. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:1039–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Setti AS, Cortezzi SS, Figueira Rde C, Martinhago CD, Braga DP, Iaconelli Jr A, et al. A chromosome 19 locus positively influences the number of retrieved oocytes during stimulated cycles in Brazilian women. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:443–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Setti AS, Figueira Rde C, Braga DP, Iaconelli Jr A, Borges Jr E. Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection benefits for patients with oligoasthenozoospermia according to the 2010 World Health Organization reference values. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2711–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Souza Setti A, Ferreira RC, Paes de Almeida Ferreira Braga D, de Cassia Savio Figueira R, Iaconelli Jr A, Borges Jr E. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome versus intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection outcome: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21:450–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spano M, Cordelli E, Leter G, Lombardo F, Lenzi A, Gandini L. Nuclear chromatin variations in human spermatozoa undergoing swim-up and cryopreservation evaluated by the flow cytometric sperm chromatin structure assay. Mol Hum Reprod. 1999;5:29–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stevanato J, Bertolla RP, Barradas V, Spaine DM, Cedenho AP, Ortiz V. Semen processing by density gradient centrifugation does not improve sperm apoptotic deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation rates. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:889–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sukcharoen N, Sithipravej T, Promviengchai S, Chinpilas V, Boonkasemsanti W. Sperm morphology evaluated by computer (IVOS) cannot predict the fertilization rate in vitro after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:564–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Svalander P, Jakobsson AH, Forsberg AS, Bengtsson AC, Wikland M. The outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection is unrelated to ‘strict criteria’ sperm morphology. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:1019–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    rWHO, eds. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Xu L, Lu RK, Chen L, Zheng YL. Comparative study on efficacy of three sperm-separation techniques. Asian J Androl. 2000;2:131–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Younglai EV, Holt D, Brown P, Jurisicova A, Casper RF. Sperm swim-up techniques and DNA fragmentation. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1950–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zini A, Finelli A, Phang D, Jarvi K. Influence of semen processing technique on human sperm DNA integrity. Urology. 2000;56:1081–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edson BorgesJr.
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Amanda Souza Setti
    • 1
    • 2
  • Livia Vingris
    • 2
  • Rita de Cassia Savio Figueira
    • 2
  • Daniela Paes de Almeida Ferreira Braga
    • 1
    • 2
  • Assumpto IaconelliJr.
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto Sapientiae – Centro de Estudos e Pesquisa em Reprodução Humana AssistidaSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Fertility – Centro de Fertilização AssistidaSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations