P–069 microfluidic sperm sorting vs density gradient to yield sperm with reduced DFI for patients undergoing IVF-ICSI

Study question To compare the effect of sperm preparation methods on the DFI of semen sample for patients undergoing ICSI. Summary answer On comparing the results, microfluidic sperm sorting yielded sperms with significantly less DFI as compared to density gradient method of sperm preparation. What is known already The DNA integrity of the sperm plays an important role to ensure formation of good quality embryos with increased potential of fertilization, growth and ultimately implantation.. Centrifugation has shown to add stress to the sperm and leading to DNA damage, therefore there is a need to develop techniques of sperm preparation which help in retrieving as many sperms with intact DNA from the unprocessed sample as possible. Microfludic is fluid dynamic based technique of sperm preparation. in this study, we evaluated if microfluidic sperm sorter can recover motile sperm with better DNA integrity compared to density gradient preparation method. Study design, size, duration Prospective randomized study conducted in 80 patients undergoing IVF-ICSI with normal semen parameters (based WHO criteria 2010). DFI was done using Sperm Chromatin Dispersion (SCD) test in split semen samples prepared by microfluidic sperm sorter and density gradient method. Sperm morphology and motility were also recorded and evaluated based on the WHO 2010 criteria. Participants/materials, setting, methods Semen parameters of the sample were assessed by microscopic examination. DFI of each unprocessed sample was carried out using SCD test, following that the sample was split and sperm preparation was done using microfluidic sperm sorter and density gradient. the recovered sperm were tested for DFI and the results were compared. Main results and the role of chance Mean DFI in unprocessed semen samples was 23%. the analysis of split semen samples post preparation showed that the DFI was significantly reduced with the use of microfluidic sperm sorter (mean DFI 0.6%) as compared to density gradient (mean DFI 9%). Limitations, reasons for caution A major limitation of the microfluidic sperm sorter is the use sperm concentration and motility of the semen sample. In oligospermic and asthenospermic samples, density gradient is the preferred method of preparation. Lack of data showing improvement in clinical outcomes with reduced DFI is also a major limitation. Wider implications of the findings: Microfluidics has shown to significantly reduce the DFI of the semen sample, it requires no extra equipment and cost and is relatively easy to pick up. Density gradient method of sperm preparation continues to be the preferred method due to its versatility and recovery of good quality sperm. Trial registration number Not applicable