Use of microfluidic sperm extraction chips as an alternative method in patients with recurrent in vitro fertilisation failure

  • Koray Yildiz
  • Sengul YukselEmail author
Assisted Reproduction Technologies



It is known that sperm preparation techniques in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) are intended to select the best-quality sperm. The aim of this study is to compare sperm the density gradient method and microfluidic chip (Fertile Plus) method in infertile patients by analysing fertilisation rates, pregnancy rates, and sperm morphology and DNA fragmentation rates posed by these two methods.


Using semen samples obtained from the patients, sperms were prepared with gradient (n = 312) and microfluidic chip methods (n = 116). Fertilisation and pregnancy rates were compared in the first time and in the recurrent IVF trial patients. In addition, the morphology and DNA fragmentation comparison of sperm samples were evaluated by Toluidine blue in situ chemical staining method.


There was no statistically significant difference between fertilisation and pregnancy rates when compared with study groups in first-time IVF treatment patients. However, in recurrent IVF failure patients, there was a significant difference in fertilisation rates but no statistically significant difference was found in pregnancy rates. The microfluidic chip method significantly decreased sperm DNA fragmentation index according to density gradient method.


Microfluidic chip method may be recommended in patients with recurrent unsuccessful in vitro trials. The sperm DNA fragmentation test prior to the treatment will be helpful in selecting the appropriate sperm-washing method.


IVF Microfluidic chip Sperm DNA fragmentation 


Funding information

This study was funded by Inonu University Research Fund (2016/147).

Compliance with ethical standards

The study was submitted to and has been approved by Malatya Province Clinical Research Council of Ethics with the protocol number 2017-34.


  1. 1.
    Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(4):411–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR, Boerma T, Vanderpoel S, Stevens GA. National, regional and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: a systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med. 2012;9(12):e1001356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boivin J, Bunting L, Collins JA, Nygren KG. International estimates of infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking: potential need and demand for infertility medical care. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(6):1506–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tanphaichitr N, Agulnick A, Seibel M, Taymor M. Comparison of the in vitro fertilization rate by human sperm capacitated by multiple-tube swim-up and Percoll gradient centrifugation. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1988;5(3):119–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aitken RJ, Clarkson JS. Significance of reactive oxygen species and antioxidants in defining the efficacy of sperm preparation techniques. J Androl. 1988;9(6):367–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tasoglu S, Safaee H, Zhang X, Kingsley JL, Catalano PN, Gurkan UA, et al. Exhaustion of racing sperm in nature-mimicking microfluidic channels during sorting. Small. 2013;9(20):3374–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Belva F, Bonduelle M, Roelants M, Michielsen D, Van Steirteghem A, Verheyen G, et al. Semen quality of young adult ICSI offspring: the first results. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2811–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schieve LA, Peterson HB, Meikle SF, Jeng G, Danel I, Burnett NM, et al. Live-birth rates and multiple-birth risk using in vitro fertilization. JAMA. 1999;282(19):1832–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tomlinson MJ, Moffatt O, Manicardi GC, Bizzaro D, Afnan M, Sakkas D. Interrelationships between seminal parameters and sperm nuclear DNA damage before and after density gradient centrifugation: implications for assisted conception. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(10):2160–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Avendaño C, Franchi A, Duran H, Oehninger S. DNA fragmentation of normal spermatozoa negatively impacts embryo quality and intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:549–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yetkinel S, Kilicdag EB, Aytac PC, Haydardedeoglu B, Simsek E, Cok T. Effects of the microfluidic chip technique in sperm selection for intracytoplasmic sperm injection for unexplained infertility: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;18:1375–2.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Der Zwalmen P, Bertin-Segal G, Geerts L, Debauche D, Schoysman R. Sperm morphology and IVF pregnancy rate: comparison between Percoll gradient centrifugation and swim-up procedures. Hum Reprod. 1991;6(4):581–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prakash P, Leykin L, Chen Z, Toth T, Sayegh R, Schiff I, et al. Preparation by differential gradient centrifugation is better than swim-up in selecting sperm with normal morphology (strict criteria). Fertil Steril. 1998;69(4):722–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muratori M, Tarozzi N, Cambi M, Boni L, Iorio AL, Passaro C, et al. Variation of DNA fragmentation levels during density gradient sperm selection for assisted reproduction techniques: a possible new male predictive parameter of pregnancy? Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(20):e3624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zini A, Finelli A, Phang D, Jarvi K. Influence of semen processing technique on human sperm DNA integrity. Urology. 2000;56(6):1081–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zini A, Nam RK, Mak V, Phang D, Jarvi K. Influence of initial semen quality on the integrity of human sperm DNA following semen processing. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(4):824–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang M, Sun J, Wang L, Gao X, Lu X, Wu Z, et al. Assessment of density gradient centrifugation (DGC) and sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) measurements in couples with male factor infertility undergoing ICSI. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(12):1655–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ghaleno LR, Valojerdi MR, Janzamin E, Chehrazi M, Sharbatoghli M, Yazdi RS. Evaluation of conventional semen parameters, intracellular reactive oxygen species, DNA fragmentation and dysfunction of mitochondrial membrane potential after semen preparation techniques: a flow cytometric study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;289:173–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jackson RE, Bormann CL, Hassun PA, Rocha AM, Motta EL, Serafini PC. Effects of semen storage and separation techniques on sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2626–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jayaraman V, Upadhya D, Narayan PK, Adiga SK. Sperm processing by swim-up and density gradient is effective in elimination of sperm with DNA damage. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:557–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Quinn MM, Jalalian L, Ribeiro S, Ona K, Demirci U, Cedars MI, et al. Microfluidic sorting selects sperm for clinical use with reduced DNA damage compared to density gradient centrifugation with swim-up in split semen samples. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(8):1388–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cissen M, Wely MV, Scholten I, Mansell S, Bruin JP, Mol BW, et al. Measuring sperm DNA fragmentation and clinical outcomes of medically assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0165125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rui BR, Angrimani D, Bicudo LC, Losano J, Nichi M, Pereira R. A fast, low-cost and efficient method for the diagnosis of sperm DNA fragmentation in several species. Reprod Domest Anim. 2018;53:171–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Erenpreiss J, Jepson K, Giwercman A, Tsarev I, Erenpreisa J, Spano M. Toluidine blue cytometry test for sperm DNA conformation: comparison with the flow cytometric sperm chromatin structure and TUNEL assays. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:2277–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tsarev I, Bungum M, Giwercman A, Erenpreisa J, Ebessen T, Ernst E, et al. Evaluation of male fertility potential by Toluidine Blue test for sperm chromatin structure assessment. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(7):1569–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pourmasumi S, Khoradmehr A, Rahiminia T, Sabeti P, Talebi A, Ghasemzadeh J, et al. Evaluation of sperm chromatin integrity using aniline blue and toluidine blue staining in infertile and normozoospermic men. J Reprod Infertil. 2019;20(2):95–101.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Evenson DP, Wixon R. Clinical aspects of sperm DNA fragmentation detection and male infertility. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 2006;65(5):979–91.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zini A, Jamal W, Cowan L, Al-Hathal N. Is sperm DNA damage associated with IVF embryo quality? A systematic review. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(5):391–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Doğu Fertil IVF CenterMalatyaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Medical Biology and Genetics, Medicine Faculty, School of MedicineInonu UniversityMalatyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations