Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Print publication year: 2009
  • Online publication date: May 2010

Chapter 35 - Sperm processing techniques


Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is indicated for couples with unexplained infertility, mild to moderate male-factor infertility, or certain female factors, such as antisperm antibodies or a hostile cervical environment. Pre-screening for couples attempting an IUI procedure includes testing for infectious diseases, genetic abnormalities, and general medical problems, such as anemia. Oligospermic men have an increased likelihood of harboring genetic anomalies, such as Y-chromosome microdeletions. The use of fertility drugs has been associated with neoplasia, particularly borderline ovarian tumors. Pregnancy complications include multiple gestations, birth defects, low birthweight, and ectopic pregnancies. Chain of custody is a concept that dictates exactly which person or facility has physical control of a laboratory specimen from the time it leaves the patient's body until it arrives at its ultimate destination. In IUI, the initial specimen is the man's ejaculate and the final destination is his designated partner's uterus.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO


[1] WolfDP. Sperm–egg interaction. In: CentolaGM, GinsburgKA, eds. Evaluation and Treatment of the Infertile Male. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996: 6–18.
[2] BattagliaDE. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: the process, the outcomes and the controversies. In: PattonPE, BattagliaDE, eds. Office Andrology. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 2005: 241–54.
[3] SettlageDSF, MotoshimaM, TredwayDR. Sperm transport from the external os to the fallopian tubes in women: a time and quantitation study. Fertil Steril 1973; 24: 655–61.
[4] MortimerD, TempletonAA. Sperm transport in the human female reproductive tract in relation to semen analysis characteristics and time of ovulation. J Reprod Fertil 1982; 64: 401–8.
[5] JeyendranRS, ZhangXJ. Sperm processing methods. In: JeyendranRS, ed. Sperm Collection and Processing Methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003: 107–10.
[6] FraserLR. Sperm capacitation and the acrosome reaction. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (Suppl 1): 9–19.
[7] KupkerW, DiedrichK, EdwardsRG. Principles of mammalian fertilization. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (Suppl 1): 20–32.
[8] SahmayS, AtasuT, KaracanI. The effect of intrauterine insemination on uterine activity. Int J Fertil 1990; 35: 310–14.
[9] StoneSC, de la MazaLM, PetersonEM. Recovery of microorganisms from the pelvic cavity after intracervical or intrauterine artificial insemination. Fertil Steril 1986; 46: 61–5.
[10] CentolaGM. Sperm preparation for insemination. In: PattonPE, BattagliaDE, eds. Office Andrology. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 2005: 39–52.
[11] MastroianniL Jr, LabergeJL, RockJ. Appraisal of the efficacy of artificial insemination with husband’s sperm and evaluation of insemination techniques. Fertil Steril 1957; 8: 260–6.
[12] ByrdW. Processing human semen for insemination: comparison of methods. In: CentolaGM, GinsburgKA, eds. Evaluation and Treatment of the Infertile Male. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996: 6–18.
[13] SunL, GastaldiC, PetersonEM, de la MazaLM, StoneSC. Comparison of techniques for the selection of bacteria-free sperm preparations. Fertil Steril 1987; 48: 659–63.
[14] WongPC, BalmacedaJP, BlancoJD. Sperm washing and swim-up technique using antibiotics removes microbes from human semen. Fertil Steril 1986; 45: 97–100.
[15] ZavosPM, WilsonEA. Retrograde ejaculation: etiology and treatment via the use of a new noninvasive method. Fertil Steril 1984; 42: 627–32.
[16] HansonFM, RockJ. Artificial insemination with husband’s sperm. Fertil Steril 1951; 2: 162–74.
[17] DodsonWC, MoessnerJ, MillerJ, LegroRS, GnatukCL. A randomized comparison of the methods of sperm preparation for intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 1998; 70: 574–5.
[18] DepypereH, MilingosS, ComhaireF. Intrauterine insemination in male subfertility: a comparative study of sperm preparation using commercial percoll kit and conventional sperm wash. Eur J Ob Gyn Reprod Biol 1995; 62: 225–9.
[19] PaulsonJD, PolakoskiK, LetoS. Further characterization of glass wool column filtration of human semen. Fertil Steril 1979; 32: 125–6.
[20] JeyendranRS, Perez-PelaezM, CraboBG. Concentration of viable spermatozoa for artificial insemination. Fertil Steril 45: 132–4.
[21] JohnsonDE, ConfinoE, JeyendranRS. Glass wool column filtration versus mini-percoll gradient for processing poor quality semen samples. Fertil Steril 1996; 66: 459–62.
[22] DrobnisEZ, ZhongCQ, OverstreetJW. Separation of cryopreserved human semen using Sephadex columns, washing or Percoll gradients. J Androl 1991; 12: 201–8.
[23] ZavosPM, CentolaGM. Selection of sperm from oligozoospermic men for ARTA: comparisons between swim-up and Spermprep filtration. ARTA 1991; 1: 338–45.
[24] AgarwalA, ManglonaA, LoughlinKR. Filtration of spermatozoa through L membrane: a new method. Fertil Steril 1991; 56: 1162–7.
[25] AgarwalA, ManglonaA, LoughlinKR. Improvement in semen quality and sperm fertilizing ability after filtration through the L4 membrane: comparison of results with swim-up technique. J Urol 1992; 147: 1539–41.
[26] EricssonRJ, LangevinCN, NishinoM. Isolation of fraction rich in human Y sperm. Nature 1973; 246: 421–4.
[27] GlassRH, EricssonRJ. Intrauterine insemination of isolated motile sperm. Fertil Steril 1978; 29: 535–9.
[28] SaidTM, GrunewaldS, PaaschU, et al. Advantage of combining magnetic cell separation with sperm preparation techniques. RBM Online 2005; 10: 740–6.
[29] WangFN, LinCT, HongCY, et al. Modification of the Wang tube to improve in vitro semen manipulation. Arch Androl 1992; 29: 267–9.
[30] ColakogluM, KodamaH, FukudaJ, TanakaT. A new variation of swim-up technique in the preparation for intrauterine insemination. Jap J Fertil Steril 1995; 40: 291–5.
[31] LopataA, PatulloMJ, ChangA, JamesB. A method for collecting motile spermatozoa from human semen. Fertil Steril 1976; 27: 677–84.
[32] MortimerD, MortimerST. Methods of sperm preparation for assisted reproduction. Ann Acad Med Sing 1992; 21: 517–24.
[33] GonzalesFG, PellaRE. Swim down: a rapid and easy method to select motile spermatozoa. Arch Androl 1993; 30: 29–34.
[34] WiklandM, WikO, SteenY, et al. A self-migration method for preparation of sperm for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1987; 3: 191–5.
[35] ZimmermanER, RobertsonKR, KimHR, DrobnisEZ, NakajimaST. Semen preparation with the sperm select system versus a washing technique. Fertil Steril 1994; 61: 269–75.
[36] PertoftHC, LaurentTC. Isopycnic separation of cells and cell organelles on centrifugation in modified colloidal silica gradients. In: CatsimpoolasN, ed. Methods of Cell Separation, Volume 1. New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1977: 25–32.
[37] GorusFK, PipeleersDG. A rapid method for the fractionation of human spermatozoa according to their progressive motility. Fertil Steril 1981; 35: 662–5.
[38] MorshediM, DuranHE, TaylorS, OehningerS. Efficacy and pregnancy outcome of two methods of semen preparation for intrauterine insemination: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 2003; 79 (Suppl 3): 1625–32.
[39] EstevesSC, SharmaRK, ThomasAJ, AgarwalA. Effect of swim-up sperm washing and subsequent capacitation on acrosome status and functional membrane integrity of normal sperm. Int J Fertil Women’s Med 2000; 45: 335–41.
[40] SharmaRK, SeifarthK, GarlakD, AgarwalA. Comparison of three sperm preparation media. Int J Fertil Women’s Med 1999; 44: 163–7.
[41] CentolaGM, HerkoR, AndolinaE, WeisenselS. Comparison of sperm separation methods: Effect on recovery, motility, motion parameters and hyperactivation. Fertil Steril 1998; 70: 1173–5.
[42] PrakashP, LeykinL, ChenZ, et al. Preparation by differential gradient centrifugation is better than swim-up in selecting sperm with normal morphology (strict criteria). Fertil Steril 1998; 69: 722–6.
[43] MoohanJM, LindsayKS. Spermatozoa selected by a discontinuous percoll density gradient exhibit better motion characteristics, more hyperactivation and longer survival than direct swim-up. Fertil Steril 1995; 64: 160–5.
[44] CarrellDT, KuneckPH, PetersonCM, et al. A randomized, prospective analysis of five sperm preparation techniques before intrauterine insemination of husband sperm. Fertil Steril 1998; 69: 122–6.
[45] MortimerD. Practical Laboratory Andrology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994.
[46] GliedtD, ReedML. Preparation of gametes for assisted reproductive technologies. In: Andrology and Embryology Review Course Manual. Chicago, IL: American Association of Bioanalysts, 2003: 8.1–8.58.
[47] CrossNL. Role of cholesterol in sperm capacitation. Biol Reprod 1998; 59: 7–11.
[48] NicholsonCM, AbramssonL, HolmDE, BjurulfE. Bacterial contamination and sperm recovery after semen preparation by density gradient centrifugation using silane-coated silica particles at different g forces. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 662–6.
[49] ShekarrizM, DeWireDM, ThomasAJ, AgarwalA. A method of human semen centrifugation to minimize the iatrogenic sperm injuries caused by reactive oxygen species. Eur Urol 1995; 28: 31–5.
[50] JeyendranRS, RuizA, ZhangXJ. General procedures: sperm washing, sperm treatment and cryopreservation. In: JeyendranRS, ed. Sperm Collection and Processing Methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003: 111–22.
[51] AitkenRJ, GordonE, HarkissD, et al. Relative impact of oxidative stress on the functional competence and genomic integrity of human spermatozoa. Biol Reprod 1998; 59: 1037–46.
[52] ByrdW, DrobnisEZ, KuttehWH, MarshburnP, CarrBR. Intrauterine insemination with frozen donor sperm: a prospective randomized trial comparing three different sperm preparation techniques. Fertil Steril 1994; 62: 850–6.
[53] OlmsteadSS, DubinNH, ConeRA, MoenchTR. The rate at which human sperm are immobilized and killed by mild acidity. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 687–93.
[54] RuizA, JeyendranRS. Sperm processing procedure for intrauterine insemination. In: JeyendranRS, ed. Sperm Collection and Processing Methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003: 123–40.
[55] DreviusLO. The “sperm-rise” test. J Reprod Fertil 1971; 24: 427–9.
[56] IngRM, LiDQ, HardingAM, JonesWR. A comparison of swim-down and swim-up methods for the extraction of high motility sperm. Fertil Steril 1991; 55: 817–19.
[57] PhippsWR. Assisted reproductive technology for male factor infertility. In: CentolaGM, GinsburgKA, eds. Evaluation and Treatment of the Infertile Male. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996: 130–54.
[58] NgFLH, LiuDY, BakerHWG. Comparison of percoll, mini-percoll and swim-up methods for sperm preparation from abnormal semen samples. Hum Reprod 1992; 7: 261–6.
[59] BakerHWG, NgFLH, LiuDY. Preparation and analysis of semen for IVF/GIFT. In: TrounsonA, GardnerDK, eds. Handbook of In Vitro Fertilization.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1993: 33–56.
[60] VeeckL. TES and Tris (TEST)-yolk buffer systems, sperm function testing and in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1992; 58: 484–6.
[61] PaulsonRJ, SauerMV, FrancisMM, MacasoTM, LoboRA. A prospective controlled evaluation of TEST-yolk buffer in the preparation of sperm for human in vitro fertilization in suspected cases of male infertility. Fertil Steril 1992; 58: 551–5.
[62] SilberSJ. Testis biopsy and the infertile male. In: PattonPE, BattagliaDE, eds. Office Andrology. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 2005: 215–40.
[63] SmithS, HosidS, ScottL. Use of post separation sperm parameters to determine the method of choice for sperm preparation for assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 1995; 63: 591–