Comparison of Sperm Motility, Recovery Rate, and Fertilization Rate using Three Different Sperm Preparation Methods: Swim-up, Percoll, Sil-Select.

Ha,  J H; Oum,  K B; Chung,  H M; Chung,  M K; Kim,  H K; Ko,  J J; Yoon,  T K; Cha,  K Y

Original Article

Korean Journal of Fertility and Sterility 1999;26(2):257-263.
Published online January 1, 2001.

Comparison of Sperm Motility, Recovery Rate, and Fertilization Rate using Three Different Sperm Preparation Methods: Swim-up, Percoll, Sil-Select.

J H Ha, K B Oum, H M Chung, M K Chung, H K Kim, J J Ko, T K Yoon, K Y Cha

Abstract

It is well known that discard of seminal plasma from the semen and separation of motile sperm should be preceded before insemination for IUI or IVF. Till now, more than ten kinds of semen treatment methods have been developed. Of those, swim-up and Percoll methods have been used widely in ART laboratories as a routine semen treatment methods because of its advantages. However, there are reports that Percoll can make a genetic trouble because of its chemical structure and therefore the necessity has been arisen to substitute Percoll for other equivalent materials. This study was performed to evaluate the effects of three different sperm preparation methods (swim-up, Percoll and Sil-Select) on sperm motility, sperm recovery rate and fertilization rate. Also, the feasibility of using Sil-Select instead of Percoll in ART was evaluated. Each semen samples were divided into three fractions and motile sperm were recovered by swim-up, Percoll and Sil-Select gradient centrifugation methods. Normal and sub-normal criteria of fifteen semen samples and seventeen IVF cycles were included in these study. As results, no significant difference was found in sperm recovery rate in normal semen treated by a Swim-up, Percoll and Sil-Select method (13.2x10(6), 17.5x10(6) and 17.7x10(6) respectively). The initial sperm motility was 61.9% and this increased to 87.1%, 92.6% and 89.5% through Swim-up, Percoll and Sil-Select treatment, respectively Higher motility was observed in Percoll and Sil-Select treated groups (81.5%, 79.2%, respectively) than swim-up group (66.8%) after incubation for 24hrs. In sub-normal group, sperm recovery rates were higher in Sil-Select group (2.9x10(6)) than Percoll patients group (1.8x 10(6)). In IVF cycles, the outcomes of fertilization using sperm treated by swim-up and Sil-Select group were similar (82.2%, 79.7% respectively). In conclusion, our results indicate that Sil-Select can be used as a substitute material for sperm preparation instead of Percoll.