Differential external morphological changes between laserassisted immobilized and mechanical immobilized human sperm: by SEM comparison
Refereed conference paper presented and published in conference proceedings



摘要Study question: Is the external structure of laser-assisted immobilized sperm different from mechanical immobilized one?
Summary answer: Laser-assisted immobilized sperm showed no external physical damage but distinct morphological changes were observed while mechanical immobilized sperm showed clear external damages.
What is known already: Sperm immobilization can be achieved by both mechanical and laser-assisted methods and showed equivalent fertilization and embryo cleavage rate. However, there is so far no study comparing physical
damages between the two methods.
Study design, size, duration: At least 600 human sperm were immobilized by mechanical and laser-assisted methods and then were examined external structure using scanning electronic microscope.
Participants/materials, setting, methods: Ten normospermic samples were collected in our andrology unit for the immobilization-SEM study. ICSI injection needles were used for mechanical immobilization while non-contact
infra-red diode laser was used for laser-assisted immobilization. Immobilized sperm were then under SEM for examination. Modified viability test on the two immobilization methods was used to examine differential membrane integrities. Main results and the role of chance: We found external damages on mechanical kinked sperm, surprisingly, external damage was not found on laserassisted immobilized sperm. Although no external damage was found on the membrane of laser-assist immobilized sperm, there were three types of morphologic changes were observed. When laser applied on end piece area resulted in 100% immobilization and 94% with immediate coil tail formation was noted; while laser applied on sperm principal piece area resulted in 100% immobilization but only 8% sharp bend of sperm tails were observed. Our modified membrane integrity assay also revealed that majority (91%) of laserassisted immobilized sperm retained membrane intactness significantly (<0.001) compared to mechanical method that coherent with our SEM observation.
Limitations, reasons for caution: Our study is limited on human sperm with normal WHO semen parameters.
Wider implications of the findings: The intactness of the membrane and external structure on laser-assisted immobilization showed that complete membrane rupture is not necessary for sperm immobilization. This finding is
opposite to general concept that both of the immobilization methods can cause physical damages immediately on sperm and losing theirs membrane integrities.
著者Chan DY
會議名稱The 33rd Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE)
會議論文集題名Human Reproduction
期次Suppl 1
出版社Oxford University Press

上次更新時間 2018-20-01 於 18:37