This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Williams M, Thompson LA, Li TC, Mackenna A, Barratt CL, Cooke ID. Uterine flushing: a method to recover spermatozoa and leukocytes. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(6):925-8; DOI:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep. a138168.Search in Google Scholar
Pinto S, Carrageta DF, Alves MG, Rocha A, Agarwal A, Barros A, Oliveira PF. Sperm selection strategies and their impact on assisted reproductive technology outcomes. Andrologia. 2021;53(2):e13725; DOI:10.1111/and.13725.Search in Google Scholar
Evenson DP, Larson KL, Jost LK. Sperm chromatin structure andrology lab corner assay: its clinical use for detecting sperm DNA fragmentation in male infertility and comparisons with other techniques. J Androl. 2002;23(1):25-43; DOI:10.1002/j.1939-4640.2002.tb02599.x.Search in Google Scholar
Lewis SE, Aitken RJ, Conner SJ, Iuliis GD, Henkel R, Giwercman A, Gharagozloo P. The impact of sperm DNA damage in assisted conception and beyond: recent advances in diagnosis and treatment. Reprod Biomed. 2013;27(4):325-37; DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.06.014.Search in Google Scholar
Yetkinel S, Kilicdag EB, Aytac PC, Haydardedeoglu B, Simsek E, Cok T. Effects of the microfluidic chip technique in sperm selection for intracytoplasmic sperm injection for unexplained infertility: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Ass Reprod Gen. 2019;36(3):403-9; DOI:10.1007/s10815-018-1375-2.Search in Google Scholar
Quinn MM, Jalalian L, Ribeiro S, Ona K, Demirci U, Cedars MI, Rosen MP. Microfluidic sorting selects sperm for clinical use with reduced DNA damage compared to density gradient centrifugation with swim-up in split semen samples. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(8):1388-93; DOI:10.1093/humrep/dey239.Search in Google Scholar
Tasoglu S, Safaee H, Zhang X, Kingsley JL, Catalano PN, Gurkan UA, Nureddin A, Kayaalp E, Anchan RM, Maas RL, Tuzel E, Demirci U. Exhaustion of racing sperm in nature-mimicking microfluidic channels during sorting. Small. 2013;9:3374-84; DOI:10.1002/smll.201300020.Search in Google Scholar
World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 6th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. 276 p.Search in Google Scholar
Ješeta M, Boženková E, Žáková J, Ventruba P, Crha I, Lousová E, Coufalová P, Kempisty B. Magnetic-activated cell sorting in combination with swim-up efficiency improve effectivity of spermatozoa separation. Med J Cell Biol. 2018;6(2):55-60; DOI:10.2478/acb-2018-0010.Search in Google Scholar
Pujianto DA, Oktarina M, Sharma Sharaswati IA, Yulhasri. Hydrogen peroxide has adverse effects on human sperm quality parameters, induces apoptosis, and reduces survival. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2021;14(2):121-8; DOI:10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_241_2010.4103/jhrs.jhrs_241_20.Search in Google Scholar
Kishi K, Ogata H, Ogata S, Mizusawa Y, Okamoto E, Matsumoto Y, Kokeguchi S, Shiotani M. Frequency of sperm DNA fragmentation according to selection method: Comparison and relevance of a microfluidic device and a swim-up procedure. J Clin Diag Res. 2015;9(11):14-6; DOI:10.7860/JCDR/2015/10332.6811.Search in Google Scholar
Quinn MM, Jalalian L, Ribeiro S, Ona K, Demirci U, Cedars MI, Rosen MP. Microfluidic sorting selects sperm for clinical use with reduced DNA damage compared to density gradient centrifugation with swim-up in split semen samples. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(8):1388-93; DOI:10.1093/humrep/dey239.Search in Google Scholar
Gotsiridze K, Nana M, Mariam M, Tamar J. Live motile sperm sorting device improves embryo aneuploidy: a retrospective cohort study. Fertil Reprod. 2024;6(03):117-22; DOI:10.1142/s2661318224500166.Search in Google Scholar
Banti M, Van Zyl E, Kafetzis D. Sperm preparation with microfluidic sperm sorting chip may improve intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes compared to density gradient centrifugation. Reprod Sci. 2024;31(6):1695-704; DOI:10.1007/s43032-024-01483-1.Search in Google Scholar
Anbari F, Khalili MA, Sultan Ahamed AM, Mangoli E, Nabi A, Dehghanpour F, Sabour M. Microfluidic sperm selection yields higher sperm quality compared to conventional method in ICSI program: a pilot study. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2021;67(2):137-43; DOI:10.1080/19396368.20 20.1837994.Search in Google Scholar
Zini A, Finelli A, Phang D, Jarvi K. Influence of semen processing technique on human sperm DNA integrity. Urology. 2000;56(6):1081-4; DOI:10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00770-6.Search in Google Scholar
Feyzioglu BS, Avul Z. Effects of sperm separation methods before intrauterine insemination on pregnancy outcomes and live birth rates: differences between the swim-up and microfluidic chip techniques. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023;102(46):e36042; DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000036042.Search in Google Scholar
Romany L, Garrido N, Motato Y, Belén A, Remohí J, Meseguer M. Removal of annexin V – positive cells for intracytoplasmic sperm injection in ovum donation cycles does not improve reproductive outcome: a controlled and randomized trial in unselected males. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(6):1567-75; DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.09.001.Search in Google Scholar
