The effect of semen collection location and time to processing on sperm parameters and early IVF/ICSI outcomes

Collecting semen samples at home for fertility assessment: time for a new standard?

BACKGROUND

In fertility clinics the standard approach to semen collection involves a private room close to the laboratory to avoid fluctuations in temperature and to control the time between collection and processing. There are still no firm conclusions whether collecting semen at home has any influence on sperm quality and reproductive competence. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the site of semen collection affects semen parameters.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study performed at a tertiary level public fertility center included 8634 semen samples from 5880 men undergoing fertility assessment from 2015 to 2021. The impact of sample collection site was evaluated using a generalized linear mixed model. A subgroup analysis comparing clinic to home collection within the same patient was performed on 1260 samples from 428 men by paired t-test or Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test.

RESULTS

Samples collected at home (N.=3240) had significantly higher semen volume, sperm concentration and total sperm count respect to samples collected at clinic (N.=5530) (median (range): 2.9 (0.0-13.9) mL versus 2.9 (0.0-11.5) mL, P=0.016; 24.0 (0.0-252.0) million/mL versus 18.0 (0.0-390.0), P<0.0001; 64.6 (0.0-946.0) million versus 49.3 (0.0-1045.0), P<0.0001, respectively). There was no difference in abstinence period and sperm motility. Paired comparisons of semen characteristics in 428 patients with home-collected (N.=583) and clinic-collected (N.=677) samples confirmed a no negative effect on volume and total sperm count.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data provide evidence for a not disadvantage with collection at home.

Effect of semen collection location on semen parameters and fertility outcomes and implications for practice in the COVID-19 era: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies

OBJECTIVE

During the COVID-19 era, semen collection at infertility centers might increase the risk of spreading SARS-CoV-2. Seminal fluid collection at home is an alternative method for preventing this spread. However, there is no conclusion about the effect of home vs clinic semen collection on semen parameters and assisted reproductive technology outcomes. This systematic review and metaanalysis aimed to assess the effect of semen collection location on semen parameters and fertility outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted using the major electronic databases including MEDLINE via Ovid, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, OpenGrey, and CENTRAL from their inception to September 2021.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov was searched to identify the ongoing registered clinical trials.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included all human randomized controlled trials and observational studies that investigated the effect of at-home semen collection vs in-clinic semen collection on semen parameters and fertility outcomes.

METHODS

We pooled the mean difference and risk ratio using Review Manager software version 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2022). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach was applied to assess the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Seven studies (3018 semen samples) were included. Overall, at-home semen collection results made little to no difference in semen volume (mean difference, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, -0.10 to 0.85; low-quality evidence), sperm count (mean difference, -6.02; 95% confidence interval, -27.26 to 15.22; very low-quality evidence), and sperm motility (mean difference, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, -4.39 to 5.92; very low-quality evidence) compared with in-clinic semen collection. There was no difference in fertilization rate (risk ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.03; very low-quality evidence) and pregnancy rate in in vitro fertilization (risk ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.25; very low-quality evidence).

CONCLUSION

At-home semen collection had no adverse effects on semen parameters or fertility outcomes compared with in-clinic collection. However, higher-quality evidence is needed.

Extend the Survival of Human Sperm In Vitro in Non-Freezing Conditions: Damage Mechanisms, Preservation Technologies, and Clinical Applications

Preservation of human spermatozoa in vitro at normothermia or hypothermia maintaining their functions and fertility for several days plays a significant role in reproductive biology and medicine. However, it is well known that human spermatozoa left in vitro deteriorate over time irreversibly as the consequence of various stresses such as the change of osmolarity, energy deficiency, and oxidative damage, leading to substantial limitations including the need for semen examinations, fertility preservation, and assisted reproductive technology. These problems may be addressed with the aid of non-freezing storage techniques. The main and most effective preservation strategies are the partial or total replacement of seminal plasma with culture medium, named as extenders, and temperature-induced metabolic restriction. Semen extenders consist of buffers, osmolytes, and antioxidants, etc. to protect spermatozoa against the above-mentioned adverse factors. Extended preservation of human spermatozoa in vitro has a negative effect on sperm parameters, whereas its effect on ART outcomes remains inconsistent. The storage duration, temperature, and pre-treatment of semen should be determined according to the aims of preservation. Advanced techniques such as nanotechnology and omics have been introduced and show great potential in the lifespan extension of human sperm. It is certain that more patients will benefit from it in the near future. This review provided an overview of the current knowledge and prospects of prolonged non-freezing storage of human sperm in vitro.

Assessing efficacy of intravenous acetaminophen for perioperative pain control for oocyte retrieval: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of preoperative intravenous (IV) acetaminophen versus oral (PO) acetaminophen or placebo on postoperative pain scores and the time to discharge in women undergoing oocyte retrieval.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Single academic fertility center.

PATIENT(S)

Women aged 18-43 years undergoing oocyte retrieval.

INTERVENTION(S)

Randomization to preoperative 1,000 mg IV acetaminophen and PO placebo (group A), IV placebo and 1,000 mg PO acetaminophen (group B), or IV and PO placebo (group C) MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Difference in patient-reported postoperative visual analog scale pain scores from baseline and the time to discharge.

RESULT(S)

Of the 159 women who completed the study, there were no differences in the mean postoperative pain score differences or the time to discharge. Although not statistically significant, the mean postoperative opioid dose requirement in group A was lower than that in groups B and C (0.24 vs. 0.59 vs. 0.58 mg IV morphine equivalents, respectively) due to fewer women in group A requiring rescue pain medication (8% vs. 19% vs. 15%, respectively). Group A also reported less constipation when compared with groups B and C (19% vs. 33% vs. 40%, respectively). The rates of postoperative nausea were similar, and there were no differences in embryology or early pregnancy outcomes between the study groups.

CONCLUSION(S)

Preoperative IV acetaminophen for women undergoing oocyte retrieval did not reduce postoperative pain scores or shorten the time to discharge when compared with PO acetaminophen or placebo and, thus, cannot currently be recommended routinely in this patient population.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03073980.