title: Analysis of outcomes of cryopreserved surgically retrieved sperm for IVF/ICSI.
abstract: We evaluated our experience to date with in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) after either cryopreserved sperm or sperm produced on the date of IVF/ICSI was used. We performed a retrospective statistical analysis of data derived from 188 women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles using surgically retrieved sperm. A total of 318 IVF/ICSI treatment cycles with 3280 ova were performed using testicular sperm extraction (TESE, 304 cycles) or microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration (MESA, 14 cycles). Sperm obtained at time of IVF/ICSI (fresh) or thawed cryopreserved sperm samples were used in 38 and 280 of the ICSI cycles, respectively. For IVF/ICSI cycles using both TESE and MESA sperm, the fertilization rate was 59.9% for cryopreserved sperm, and 53.6% when fresh sperm was used (chi2 P-alpha < .02, Cramer's 0.04). The fertilization rate for the TESE group alone was 60.0% for cryopreserved sperm and 55.1% for fresh sperm (chi2P-alpha = .075). Cohen effect size was computed at 0.03; yielding for P-beta = .8, 6597 ova would be required to demonstrate similarity between fresh and cryopreserved sperm in the TESE group. To demonstrate superiority of cryopreserved sperm in this group at a P-alpha significance level of .05, 7524 ova would be necessary. The pregnancy rate for the TESE group was 27.3% for cryopreserved sperm and 27% for fresh sperm. Further analysis of the pregnancy data in this group, using the methods described, yielded a chi2 P-alpha and power of 0.971 (effect size calculated at 0.002). While our fertilization rates for cryopreserved sperm are greater in analyses of surgically derived sperm, based on the 7 years required to obtain data on 3280 ova, full numerical resolution of the issue of whether cryopreserved sperm is superior or similar will not be available until approximately 2010. However, we believe these results, along with the similarity shown in pregnancy rates achieved with both types of sperm, clearly indicate that cryopreserved sperm is not inferior to fresh sperm.
authors.affiliation: University of Iowa, Department of Urology, 200 Hawkins Drive, 3 RCP, Iowa City, IA 52242-1089, USA. moshe-wald@uiowa.edu
authors.forename: Moshe
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Wald
authors.forename: Lawrence S
authors.initials: LS
authors.lastname: Ross
authors.forename: Gail S
authors.initials: GS
authors.lastname: Prins
authors.forename: Jeanine
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Cieslak-Janzen
authors.forename: Georg
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Wolf
authors.forename: Craig S
authors.initials: CS
authors.lastname: Niederberger
mesh_terms: D015925:Cryopreservation; D005260:Female; D005307:Fertilization in Vitro; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010053:Ovary / Q000502:physiology; D011247:Pregnancy; D011256:Pregnancy Outcome; D018873:Pregnancy Rate; D012662:Semen Preservation; D020554:Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic