Hubbry Logo
Sperm washingSperm washingMain
Open search
Sperm washing
Community hub
Sperm washing
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Sperm washing
Sperm washing
Sperm washing
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Sperm washing is the process in which individual sperm are separated from the semen. Washed sperm is used in artificial insemination using the intrauterine insemination (IUI) technique and in in vitro fertilization (IVF). It may also be used to decrease the risk of HIV transmission by an HIV-positive male, in which case the washed sperm is injected into a female using an artificial insemination technique.

Sperm washing involves removing any mucus and non-motile sperm in the semen to improve the chances of fertilization and to extract certain disease-carrying material in the semen. Sperm washing is a standard procedure in infertility treatment.

Once the fastest sperm have been isolated, before using them for artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization, it is important to confirm the absence of HIV virus in the sample.

The sample obtained after washing is analysed, usually using the PCR technique, to check that there is no viral particle. If the result is negative, i.e. there is no virus, this sample is suitable for use in assisted reproduction treatments.

These samples are usually free of the virus in a high percentage.[1]

Procedure

[edit]

Sperm washing takes place in a laboratory following sperm donation.

Sperm may be washed by density gradient centrifugation or by a "direct swim-up" technique that does not involve centrifugation. In normal semen samples, centrifugation causes no more DNA damage to spermatozoa than a direct swim-up technique.[2]

Washed sperm is concentrated in Ham's F-10 media without L-glutamine, warmed to 37 °C (99 °F).[3] A chemical known as a cryoprotectant is added to the sperm to aid the freezing and thawing process.[4] Further chemicals may be added which separate the most active sperm in the sample, as well as extend or dilute the sample so that vials for a number of inseminations are produced.

Decreased HIV transmission

[edit]

Sperm washing can be used to decrease the risk of HIV transmission in HIV-positive males, because the infection is carried by the seminal fluid rather than the sperm. One Italian study from 2005 of 567 serodiscordant couples treated with washed sperm resulted in no horizontal (to the woman) or vertical (to the child) HIV seroconversion.[5] However, there is no 100% guarantee that washed sperm is free from the virus.[5]

History

[edit]

Sperm washing was first used in Milan, Italy. The oldest child conceived using this method was born in 1997 and is HIV negative. The first known baby conceived this way in the United States, Baby Ryan, was born in 1999[6] through the Special Program of Assisted Reproduction started by Ann Kiessling.

Starting in the mid-1990s the technique was used to help HIV discordant couples conceive without passing the virus from the father to the mother or child.[7] The idea is that when the male is HIV positive, the technique will reduce the risk of transmission to the female. For years there were lingering doubts about the safety of the procedure, and many couples had to travel to places that would do the procedure, such as Italy. Today, hundreds of babies have been born through this process.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Sperm washing

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Sperm washing is a procedure in assisted reproductive technologies that involves separating motile, morphologically normal spermatozoa from the seminal plasma, debris, and other non-sperm components of ejaculated to prepare a concentrated sample of healthy for use in treatments. This process enhances the quality of by removing potentially harmful elements, such as prostaglandins and , that could cause uterine reactions or reduce fertilization potential if introduced directly into the female reproductive tract. Common techniques for sperm washing include simple wash and , where is diluted in a culture medium, centrifuged to form a pellet, and then resuspended; swim-up, in which motile are allowed to swim into an overlying layer of medium; and density gradient centrifugation, which uses a gradient to isolate based on and density. These methods, developed since the alongside the rise of fertilization (IVF), aim to maximize recovery while minimizing damage, with studies showing comparable clinical pregnancy rates across techniques, though evidence quality remains low due to limited randomized trials. Beyond fertility enhancement, sperm washing plays a critical role in reducing the risk of transmitting infections, particularly , in couples where the male partner is HIV-positive. By removing seminal fluid—the primary reservoir of —the procedure yields samples with little to no detectable , enabling safer intrauterine insemination (IUI) or IVF; systematic reviews indicate no HIV transmissions in thousands of cycles among treated couples, though counseling on residual risks is recommended. It is also applied to prepare donor and address male factor infertility by improving parameters like and concentration.

Overview

Definition

Sperm washing is a technique in designed to separate motile spermatozoa from the surrounding seminal plasma, non-motile , cellular debris, and potential pathogens. This process isolates healthy, swimming cells, which are free from the seminal fluid that can contain infectious agents or substances detrimental to fertilization. The technique is essential for preparing samples that improve quality and viability for use in fertility treatments. The core mechanism of involves or methods to achieve separation, where is layered over a medium that allows motile to migrate away from heavier contaminants. During this, seminal plasma—rich in proteins that may inhibit or trigger immune responses—is effectively removed, along with and that could compromise function or introduce risks. Non-motile and debris are also excluded, resulting in a purified concentrate of progressive spermatozoa. This targeted approach ensures the removal of inhibitory factors in seminal plasma while preserving sperm motility and DNA integrity.

Purposes

Sperm washing serves to enhance sperm quality by isolating motile and morphologically normal spermatozoa from the seminal plasma, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful fertilization in assisted reproductive procedures. This process concentrates healthy sperm while removing debris, dead cells, and non-motile elements that could hinder fertility outcomes. A key objective is to minimize the transmission risk of viral pathogens present in seminal fluid, such as and hepatitis C, by separating from infected and free virus particles. This is particularly vital for couples pursuing conception without unprotected intercourse. Sperm washing also addresses seminal plasma hypersensitivity, an allergic reaction in female partners triggered by proteins in semen, by removing these allergens to enable safe intrauterine . This approach allows affected couples to achieve without systemic reactions like or . Additionally, it prepares sperm for by optimizing viability and post-thaw, as pre-freeze washing reduces damage from seminal plasma components and improves recovery of functional spermatozoa after freezing and thawing.

Techniques and Procedure

Preparation Methods

Sperm preparation methods for washing focus on isolating motile, high-quality spermatozoa from while removing seminal plasma, debris, and potential contaminants. A basic method is simple washing and , where the liquefied is diluted (typically 1:1 to 1:4) with a culture medium such as human tubal fluid (HTF) supplemented with , then centrifuged at 300 × g for 5-10 minutes to pellet the . The supernatant is discarded, and the pellet is resuspended in fresh medium (0.5-1 mL), often with a second for further cleaning. This straightforward technique is suitable for normospermic samples but offers less selection for and morphology compared to advanced methods. The two primary selection techniques are the swim-up method and density gradient centrifugation, each suited to different semen characteristics and clinical needs. These approaches enhance sperm viability and reduce non-sperm cellular components, facilitating applications in assisted reproduction. The swim-up technique selects progressively motile sperm by leveraging their natural . After semen liquefaction, approximately 1 ml of is placed in a round-bottom centrifuge tube, overlaid with 1-1.3 ml of culture medium (such as Biggers-Whitten-Whittingham or human tubal fluid medium supplemented with ), and incubated at a 45° angle for 30-60 minutes at 37°C. Motile migrate upward into the overlying medium, which is then aspirated (about 1 ml), at 300g for 10 minutes, and the resulting pellet resuspended in fresh sterile medium. This method yields a population enriched in morphologically normal with intact DNA but may retain higher levels of compared to other techniques. Density gradient centrifugation separates sperm based on density and sedimentation rates, effectively isolating superior sperm in the pellet while discarding immotile cells, leukocytes, and pathogens in the upper layers. The procedure typically uses a discontinuous two-layer gradient of colloidal silica-based media, such as 40% and 80% concentrations in a conical centrifuge tube; 1 ml of liquefied semen is carefully layered over the upper (40%) layer and centrifuged at 300g for 15-20 minutes at room temperature. The seminal plasma and upper layers are discarded, and the pellet from the bottom (80%) layer is resuspended in 5 ml of washing medium, then centrifuged twice at 200g for 10 minutes to remove residual gradient material. Common media include Percoll, a silica particle suspension historically used for its gradient stability, though it has been largely replaced in clinical settings by safer alternatives like PureSperm due to concerns over particle contamination; PureSperm, an isotonic colloid solution, provides comparable or superior recovery of motile sperm with lower DNA fragmentation. This method excels in processing poor-quality or contaminated samples by minimizing non-sperm elements. Comparisons between the methods highlight trade-offs in simplicity, yield, and contaminant removal. The swim-up technique is preferred for its straightforward execution and effectiveness with normozoospermic or low-volume samples, offering higher recovery of morphologically normal sperm, though it may be less efficient at eliminating bacteria or viruses in high-risk cases. In contrast, density gradient centrifugation provides superior separation of motile sperm from debris and pathogens, making it ideal for oligozoospermic or contaminated semen, albeit with potentially lower overall sperm yields and slightly reduced DNA integrity in some evaluations. Selection depends on semen parameters, with swim-up suiting routine preparations and gradients favored for enhanced purity in complex scenarios. Both techniques require specialized equipment to ensure sterility and optimal conditions, including low-speed s adjustable to 200-300g, sterile conical or round-bottom centrifuge tubes, density gradient media or solutions, and a 37°C incubator or heating block for maintaining physiological during incubation. All procedures are performed under hoods to prevent contamination, with post-preparation sperm assessed for and concentration via .

Step-by-Step Process

The process of sperm washing begins with , typically obtained through into a sterile in a clinical setting to ensure and avoid . The sample is then allowed to liquefy, which usually occurs within 30-60 minutes at 37°C or , facilitating the breakdown of seminal plasma for subsequent processing. Following liquefaction, the is diluted with an appropriate medium, such as supplemented Earle's (sEBSS) or human tubal fluid (HTF), often in a 1:1 to 1:10 ratio depending on volume, to reduce and prepare for separation. This diluted sample undergoes initial at 300-500 × g for 5-10 minutes to pellet the spermatozoa while separating them from seminal plasma and debris; the supernatant is carefully decanted without disturbing the pellet. The pelleted spermatozoa are resuspended in fresh medium (typically 0.5-1 ) and may undergo a secondary wash via additional or density layering, where the sample is placed over a discontinuous (e.g., 40-80% silane-coated silica) and centrifuged at 300-400 × g for 15-20 minutes to further isolate motile from non-motile cells and pathogens. In the gradient method, motile form a pellet at the bottom of the tube, which is collected and resuspended for use. Finally, the prepared suspension is assessed for concentration and using under WHO guidelines, counting at least 200 spermatozoa to determine parameters such as total motility (progressive + non-progressive) and progressive (rapidly progressive ≥25 µm/s + slowly progressive 5-25 µm/s), aiming for clinically viable levels (e.g., concentration >10-20 million/mL and progressive >30-40% for assisted ). The entire procedure is typically completed within 1-2 hours to minimize and maintain viability.

Clinical Applications

HIV Risk Reduction

Sperm washing plays a crucial role in minimizing transmission risk for couples where the male partner is -positive and the female partner is -negative, enabling safe conception through assisted reproductive techniques. The mechanism relies on the fact that primarily resides in seminal plasma and associated non-sperm cells, such as , rather than in spermatozoa themselves, which do not serve as vectors for the virus. By employing density gradient centrifugation followed by swim-up, the procedure separates motile, virus-free spermatozoa from the infectious components in the seminal fluid, yielding a purified fraction with negligible . Standard protocols for sperm washing in this context mandate rigorous processing to ensure safety. After , the sample undergoes density gradient separation to remove seminal plasma and non-sperm cells, followed by additional washing steps and swim-up to isolate motile ; guidelines such as ESHRE (2021) recommend testing the resulting fraction using (PCR) assays for to confirm negativity before use, with positive samples discarded, while ASRM (2023) emphasizes processing without specifying PCR. This processed is subsequently used in timed intrauterine (IUI) or fertilization (IVF), depending on the couple's needs, to facilitate conception while avoiding direct exposure of the partner to unprocessed . Professional guidelines from major societies endorse sperm washing as a key strategy for HIV risk reduction in couples. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) recommends implementing a wash protocol for -positive males to enrich motile and eliminate -infected cells and free , particularly when antiretroviral therapy has achieved undetectable in the male partner. Similarly, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) strongly advises advanced processing followed by testing of the washed to confirm negativity before use in medically assisted reproduction, emphasizing a multidisciplinary approach involving fertility specialists and infectious disease experts. Early clinical experience with sperm washing for HIV risk reduction is exemplified by the Milan program initiated in the 1990s by Augusto Semprini and colleagues, which demonstrated the technique's safety in practice. Starting with the first reported cases in 1992, the program processed semen from HIV-positive men for use in IUI and IVF, achieving zero vertical transmissions to offspring across thousands of assisted reproduction cycles involving serodiscordant couples, with no seroconversions observed in female partners. Systematic reviews, including data up to 2015, report no HIV transmissions in 11,585 assisted reproduction cycles using sperm washing among serodiscordant couples worldwide, with ongoing studies confirming continued safety as of 2023. This pioneering effort established sperm washing as a viable option, informing subsequent global protocols and confirming its efficacy in preventing HIV transmission during conception attempts.

Assisted Reproductive Technologies

Sperm washing plays a key role in assisted reproductive technologies () by optimizing samples for various procedures, particularly in cases of male factor infertility or suboptimal . In intrauterine (IUI), the process involves separating motile from seminal plasma, which removes prostaglandins— compounds that can induce uterine cramping and discomfort during insemination. This preparation concentrates viable sperm in a smaller volume, facilitating direct placement into the for improved delivery to the fallopian tubes and enhancing the timing of fertilization around . In in vitro fertilization (IVF) and (ICSI), sperm washing employs techniques such as density gradient centrifugation to isolate high-quality, motile sperm from debris, immature cells, and seminal fluid components. This selection is especially beneficial for male factor infertility, where low sperm parameters might otherwise compromise fertilization; by providing embryologists with optimal spermatozoa, it supports precise microinjection in ICSI, potentially leading to better embryo development without relying on barriers. For donor insemination, particularly with cryopreserved samples, sperm washing standardizes the preparation by thawing and processing vials to remove cryoprotectants and non-viable elements, ensuring consistent concentration and motility for IUI or IVF use. This reduces variability introduced by freezing and thawing, making donor sperm more reliable for recipients. Common indications for incorporating sperm washing in ART include low sperm motility (asthenozoospermia), where it enriches the sample with progressively motile cells; antisperm antibodies, which can impair sperm function and are mitigated by separating antibody-bound sperm; and cervical hostility, such as hostile cervical mucus that hinders sperm penetration, bypassed via direct intrauterine or intrafallopian transfer of washed sperm.

Effectiveness and Safety

Efficacy Data

Sperm washing has demonstrated high efficacy in preventing transmission in couples undergoing assisted reproduction. A and of observational studies reported no cases of among 3,994 women across 11,585 cycles of intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilization (IVF) using washed sperm from HIV-positive partners, yielding a transmission rate of 0% with a 95% of 0–0.0001 (less than 0.01%). This outcome aligns with early findings from Semprini et al. (), who observed no transmissions in 29 IUI cycles among 29 uninfected women using processed from HIV-infected men. Subsequent data from the through the reinforced this negligible risk, even in subgroups without viral suppression, with no seroconversions in 2,863 cycles among 1,023 women. Recent studies up to 2024 continue to report no transmissions in additional cycles using sperm washing procedures. In terms of fertility enhancement, sperm washing improves post-wash by selecting viable spermatozoa, typically increasing progressive motility from baseline levels of around 40–50% to 70% or higher. For instance, one study using Percoll washing reported motility rising from 43.4% to 61.7% (P < 0.001), representing a relative improvement of over 40% while reducing total motile count due to selection. This enhancement contributes to higher rates in IUI cycles; meta-analyses and clinical data indicate per-cycle success rates of 10–20% with washed sperm, particularly when post-wash total motile sperm count exceeds 5–9 million. In HIV-discordant couples, cumulative clinical rates reached 56.3% per couple (95% CI 54.8–57.8%) across multiple cycles using washed sperm. Meta-analyses confirm that gradient-based sperm washing methods, such as density gradient centrifugation (DGC), are superior for reducing DNA fragmentation compared to swim-up techniques. A study evaluating separation methods found DGC reduced DNA fragmentation index (DFI) from 17.8% in neat to 7.1% (a ~60% relative reduction, P < 0.05), while combined DGC and swim-up achieved 4.0% DFI (~78% reduction). Overall, these techniques minimize damage by isolating high-quality , with swim-up preferred when baseline DFI is below 30%, as it reduces DFI more effectively than DGC in such samples. Cochrane reviews on preparation for IUI note no significant differences in rates between DGC and swim-up ( 0.83, 95% CI 0.51–1.35), but highlight DGC's role in optimizing DNA integrity for better embryo outcomes. Efficacy of sperm washing is influenced by initial semen quality and laboratory standardization. Samples with higher baseline motility and concentration yield better post-wash recovery rates, with low initial progressive motility (<30%) linked to reduced pregnancy chances (≤8% per IUI cycle). Strict adherence to standardized protocols, including media composition, centrifugation speeds, and quality control measures, ensures consistent motility preservation and minimizes procedural damage, as variations in lab practices can alter outcomes by up to 20–30%.

Potential Risks

Sperm washing procedures typically result in substantial sperm loss, with recovery rates of motile spermatozoa often ranging from 20% to 45% after processing, leading to a 55-80% reduction in total count. This loss can exacerbate conditions like oligozoospermia in men with initially low counts, potentially reducing the viability of subsequent attempts. Although sperm washing significantly lowers the risk of transmission in couples, incomplete pathogen removal remains a concern, with rare instances of residual detected in processed samples. Meta-analyses indicate no documented transmissions in over 11,000 cycles, but the upper 95% suggests a residual risk of approximately 1 in 10,000 cycles, necessitating confirmatory viral testing on washed samples before use. Centrifugation steps in sperm washing can induce oxidative stress, contributing to increased sperm DNA fragmentation in some cases, with studies reporting rises in DNA damage markers post-processing. This procedural risk highlights the need for optimized protocols to minimize cellular damage during manipulation. Additional challenges include the high cost of sperm washing, estimated at $250-750 per cycle in many clinic settings as of 2025, which limits accessibility, particularly in resource-constrained areas. The procedure requires specialized laboratories equipped for assisted reproductive technologies, further restricting availability. For serodiscordant couples, ethical counseling is essential to address concerns around transmission risks, autonomy, and informed consent.

History and Development

Early Developments

The foundations of sperm washing originated in the mid-20th century within (AI) practices for , where dilution and emerged as essential techniques to enhance sperm viability, remove debris, and extend usability for broader distribution. In the , researchers developed yolk-citrate extenders to dilute while protecting spermatozoa from metabolic exhaustion and temperature shock during storage and transport, enabling more efficient AI in such as and . These methods involved gentle to concentrate motile sperm and separate them from seminal plasma, laying the groundwork for later human applications by improving in breeding programs. A pivotal advancement came in 1949 when Christopher Polge and colleagues discovered that adding to extenders allowed successful of spermatozoa, preserving fertility post-thawing without significant loss of function. By the 1970s, these animal-derived techniques transitioned to human reproductive medicine, particularly for treating through intrauterine (IUI), where basic sperm washing protocols were adapted to isolate motile and eliminate non-viable cells, , and prostaglandins that could cause uterine cramping. Ronald Ericsson's 1973 albumin density gradient method represented a key innovation, layering over progressively denser solutions to select highly motile spermatozoa for IUI, thereby addressing low count or issues in infertile couples. This approach, driven by growing research into male factor , improved IUI success rates by concentrating healthy while minimizing infection risks from unprocessed . The 1980s marked the emergence of sperm washing as a targeted response to the AIDS epidemic, with initial experiments focusing on separating spermatozoa from seminal plasma in semen from high-risk donors to mitigate HIV transmission. Italian researcher Augusto Semprini and his team at the University of Milan pioneered these efforts, recognizing that HIV primarily resides in non-sperm cellular fractions and plasma rather than spermatozoa themselves. A key milestone occurred between 1987 and 1990 through laboratory validations, including Semprini's 1989 development of swim-up and gradient washing techniques, which reduced HIV load by over 1,000-fold in processed semen samples. These early validations confirmed the procedure's efficacy in pathogen reduction while preserving reproductive potential, setting the stage for broader adoption in human fertility treatments.

Modern Advancements

The landmark 1992 report by Semprini et al. described the first successful sperm-washing program at the , where processed semen from HIV-positive men was used for timed inseminations in couples, resulting in 17 pregnancies and the birth of 10 healthy, HIV-negative children without transmission to female partners or infants. This approach marked a pivotal shift toward safe reproductive options for HIV-serodiscordant couples, building on earlier experimental techniques to enable conceptions with negligible transmission risk; the study involved 29 suitable women from 85 screened couples, with zero seroconversions observed. During the 1990s and 2000s, sperm washing gained global traction through established programs and standardized protocols. In the , the Assisted Conception Unit launched one of the first dedicated services in 1999, treating over 1,000 HIV-positive men by 2010 with intrauterine inseminations or assisted reproductive technologies using washed sperm, confirming zero seroconversions in female partners. Concurrently, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) issued guidelines in 2002 endorsing sperm washing as a standard risk-reduction strategy for HIV-serodiscordant couples pursuing fertility treatment, emphasizing semen processing to isolate motile sperm from viral particles and the need for confirmatory viral testing. In the 2010s, innovations focused on enhancing sperm quality and viral elimination during washing. Advanced density gradient centrifugation using specialized media, such as Isolate, improved sperm selection by preferentially isolating motile spermatozoa with superior DNA integrity, reducing fragmentation rates compared to simpler swim-up methods and minimizing potential genetic risks in downstream assisted reproduction. These protocols were increasingly integrated with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in in vitro fertilization cycles for HIV-serodiscordant couples, allowing comprehensive embryo screening alongside routine post-wash PCR monitoring for HIV RNA/DNA to ensure viral clearance. In the 2020s, laboratory automation has streamlined sperm washing to minimize procedural variability and . Robotic systems for semen preparation, including density gradient processing without manual , have been validated for consistent recovery and while maintaining low contamination risks, as demonstrated in recent lab evaluations. As of 2025, advancements include AI-guided recovery methods using microfluidic chips to isolate viable , leading to the first successful pregnancies reported in October 2025. Additionally, expanding applications have included studies on other sexually transmitted infections, with ASRM guidelines affirming sperm washing's utility for (HCV) serodiscordant couples, where density gradient methods effectively separate HCV from spermatozoa, supporting safe conceptions similar to protocols.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6792139/
  2. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/intrauterine-insemination/about/pac-20384722
  3. https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/en/glossary/sperm-washing
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4779710/
  5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21249711/
  6. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/22456-iui-intrauterine-insemination
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028205027640
  8. https://www.asrm.org/practice-guidance/practice-committee-documents/recommendations-for-reducing-the-risk-of-viral-transmission-during-fertility-treatment-with-the-use-of-autologous-gametes-a-committee-opinion/
  9. https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282%2808%2903473-0/fulltext
  10. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/25024-semen-allergy
  11. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/infertility/expert-answers/semen-allergy/faq-20058370
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4250457/
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8812453/
  14. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240030787
  15. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/16102
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3739082/
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0093691X11003311
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028207041349
  19. https://www.eshre.eu/-/media/sitecore-files/Guidelines/Viral-diseases/ESHRE-viral-infectiondisease-guideline_vs2.pdf
  20. https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/19/2/136/581167
  21. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/apc.2023.0163
  22. https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(01)02739-X/fulltext
  23. https://academic.oup.com/eshremonographs/article/2008/1/64/620672
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3114573/
  25. https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282%2807%2902032-8/fulltext
  26. https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282%2801%2902294-4/fulltext
  27. https://uihc.org/sperm-cryopreservation-program
  28. https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282%2898%2900302-1/fulltext
  29. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/01485019208987726
  30. https://fertilitycenteroforegon.com/sperm-washing-and-intrauterine-insemination-iui/
  31. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1360037/
  32. https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/39/Supplement_1/deae108.331/7704000
  33. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7580010/
  34. https://www.shadygrovefertility.com/article/sperm-count-iui-pregnancy-rates/
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028210006709
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9112774/
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028298005196
  38. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/j.1939-4640.2004.tb02836.x
  39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11545300/
  40. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2010014/
  41. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10397558/
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8300781/
  43. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20542505/
  44. https://onefertility.com/fees/
  45. https://triofertility.com/fertility-treatment-costs/
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3634234/
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5577704/
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4498171/
  49. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18143360/
  50. https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/31/5/918/1749890
  51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(92)92495-2
  52. https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/25/8/1869/666140
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10782130/
  54. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20251031/Columbia-researchers-report-first-successful-pregnancy-using-AI-guided-sperm-recovery-method.aspx
  55. https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(08)03473-0/fulltext
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.