Table 1. Relationship between SDF and second-level ART according to the method used to detect SDF (studies showing a significant effect on at least one parameter are in bold).
| Method for SDF detection | Authors | ART | Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCSA | Bungum et al.69 (2007) | IVF | CP (33.7% with SDF≤30% 29% with SDF>30%); PL (24.4% with SDF≤30% 19% with SDF>30%), n=388 |
| ICSI | CP (37.3% with SDF≤30% 47.9% with SDF>30%); PL (15.6% with SDF≤30% 23.8% with SDF>30%), n=223 | ||
| Bungum et al.81 (2008) | IVF/ICSI | No statistical differences of SDF values between the groups who achieved CP and who did not. IVF: n=220; ICSI: n=93 | |
| Boe-Hansen et al.70 (2006) | IVF | CP (29% with SDF≤27% 14.3% with SDF>27%); IR (22.5% with SDF≤27% 18.2% with SDF>27%), n=139 | |
| ICSI | CP (27.6% with SDF≤27% 33.3% with SDF>27%); IR (28.6% with SDF≤27% 20.7% with SDF>27%), n=47 | ||
| Gandini et al.82 (2004) | IVF | FR (68.8% with SDF=12.5%), n=12 | |
| ICSI | Patients full-term pregnancy: FR (65.5%±14.9% with SDF=23.7%±21.7%)Failure: FR (73.2%±32.8% with SDF=24.6%±19.6%), n=24 | ||
| Bungum et al.68 (2004) | IVF | CP (36.6% with SDF<27% 22.2% with SDF>27%); IR (33.3% with SDF<27% 19.4% with SDF>27%), n=109 | |
| ICSI | CP (41.5% with SDF<27% 52.9% with SDF>27%); IR (31.6% with SDF<27% 37.5% with SDF>27%), n=66 | ||
| Speyer et al.83 (2010) | IVF | CP (r=−0.054, P=0.453); no pregnancy (r=0.129, P=0.074); PL (r=−0.122, P=0.091), n=124 | |
| ICSI | CP (r=0.184, P=0.022); no pregnancy (r=0.197, P=0.014); PL (r=−0.048, P=0.555), n=96 | ||
| Virro et al.84 (2004) | IVF/ICSI | FR are not statistically different between the high-SDF group (>30%) and low-SDF group (<30%), n=249 | |
| Kennedy et al.75 (2011) | IVF/ICSI | Live birth (r=0.42, P=0.01); no pregnancy (r=0.47, P=0.01), n=233; significant correlation with PL (P<0.001) | |
| Lin et al.74 (2008) | IVF | FR (82.1% with SDF<9% 84.87% with SDF=9%−27% 84.74% with SDF>27%); ER (55.2% with SDF<9% 58.67% with SDF=9%−27% 55.03% with SDF>27%); CP (48.9% with SDF<9% 52.9% with SDF=9%−27% 54.5% with SDF>27%); PL (8.7% with SDF<9% 8.3% with SDF=9%−27% 16.7% with SDF>27%), n=137 | |
| ICSI | FR (79.58% with SDF<9% 77.81% with SDF=9%−27% 79.84% with SDF>27%); ER (59.19% with SDF<9% 52.44% with SDF=9%−27% 53.34% with SDF>27%); CP (52.4% with SDF<9% 52.3% with SDF=9%−27% 47.6% with SDF>27%); PL (9.1% with SDF<9% 13.0% with SDF=9%−27% 40.0% with SDF>27%), n=86 | ||
| TUNEL | Avendano and Oehninger85 (2011) | ICSI | FR (r=−0.020 P=0.890), early embryo cleavage (r=0.044, P=0.763), n=49 |
| Bakos et al.86 (2008) | IVF | FR (negative correlation, P<0.05), embryo cleavage (no correlation), CP (no correlation), n=45 | |
| ICSI | FR (no correlation), embryo cleavage (no correlation), CP (effect, P<0.05), n=68 | ||
| Frydman et al.87 (2008) | IVF | FR (69.9% with SDF<35% 71.7% with SDF≥35%), CP (62.5% with SDF<35% 37.5% with SDF≥35%), IR (42.4% with SDF<35% 24.5% with SDF≥35%), PL (10% with SDF<35% 36.8% with SDF≥35%), live birth (56.2% with SDF<35% 23.5 with SDF≥35%), n=117 | |
| Benchaib et al.88 (2003) | IVF | FR (84.1% with SDF≤10% 70.7% with SDF>10%); percentage of blastocysts (80% with SDF≤10% 50% with SDF>10%), n=50 | |
| ICSI | FR : no effect; percentage of blastocysts (80% with SDF≤10% 50% with SDF>10%); CP (23.8% with SDF<20%, 0% with SDF>20%), n=54 | ||
| Borini et al.89 (2006) | IVF | CP (23.2% with SDF<10%, 15.4% with SDF>10%, P=0.723); PL (15.8% with SDF<10%, 50% with SDF>10%, P=0.194), n=82 | |
| ICSI | CP (45% with SD<10%, 10% with SDF>10%, P=0.007); PL (0% with SDF<10%, 62.5% with SDF>10%, P=0.009), n=50 | ||
| Daris et al.90 (2010) | ICSI | FR (65.6% with SDF≤20% 54.9% with SDF>20%), n=20 | |
| Marchetti et al.91 (2002) | IVF | FR (r=–0.45, P=0.001 in raw semen; r=–0.01, P=NS in selected sperm), n=111 | |
| Sun et al.92 (1997) | IVF | FR (r=−0.16, P<0.05); embryo cleavage rate (r=−0.20, P<0.02), n=143 | |
| Benchaib et al.93 (2007) | IVF | FR (68.3% with SDF<15% 70.6% with SDF>15%); pregnancy/transfer (31.6% (24/76) with SDF<15% 50.0% (4/8) with SDF>15%); PL (9.1% with SDF<15% 50.0% with SDF>15%), n=88 | |
| ICSI | FR (75.4% with SDF<15% 70.3% with SDF>15%); pregnancy/transfer (37.4% (68/182) with SDF<15% 27.8% (10/36) with SDF>15%); PL (8.6% with SDF<15% 30.0% with SDF>15%), n=234 | ||
| Henkel et al.94 (2004) | IVF | FR (r=0.0502, P=0.5234); CP (r=−0.0984, P=0.2102), n=167 | |
| Henkel et al.95 (2003) | IVF | FR (r=0.0113, P=0.8718); ER (r=0.0406, P=0.5855); CP (r=−0.0889, P=0.2016), n=208 | |
| ICSI | FR (r=−0.2678, P=0.0574); ER (r=0.1666, P=0.2475); CP (r=−0.0352, P=0.8065), n=54 | ||
| COMET | Simon et al.45 (2010) | IVF | FR (69.9% with SDF=0%–20% 66.4% with SDF=21%–40% 54.4% with SDF=61%–100% in selected sperm, no differences in raw semen); embryo score (15.5% with SDF=0%–20% 10.7% with SDF=61%–100% in raw semen; 7.3% with SDF=61%–100% in selected semen); embryo transfer (26.7% with SDF=0%–20% 38.1% with SDF=61%–100% in raw semen; 34.1% with SDF=0%–20% 18.7% with SDF=61%–100% in selected sperm), n=230 |
| Alkaline-COMET vs COMET-FpG | |||
| SDF-Pr (Alkaline COMET)=39.5% vs. SDF-NPr (Alkaline COMET)=51.7%, P=0.004 in raw semen; SDF-Pr (Alkaline COMET)=26.9% vs. SDF-NPr (Alkaline COMET)=36.8%, P=0.01 in selected sperm; | |||
| SDF-Pr (COMET-FpG)=54.7% vs. SDF-NPr (COMET-FpG)=71.8%, P=0.009 in raw semen; SDF-Pr (COMET-FpG)=42.2% vs. SDF-NPr (COMET-FpG)=56.0%, P=0.045 in selected sperm, n=73 | |||
| ICSI | FR (no differences between different DFI values); embryo score (no differences between different DFI values); embryo transfer (no differences between different SDF values), n=130 | ||
| Alkaline-COMET vs COMET-FpG | |||
| SDF-Pr (Alkaline COMET)=58.9% vs. SDF-NPr (Alkaline COMET)=67.2%, P=0.109 in raw semen; SDF-Pr (Alkaline COMET)=45.5% vs. SDF-NPr (Alkaline COMET)=51.7%, P=0.243 in selected sperm; | |||
| SDF-Pr (COMET-FpG)=63.1% vs. SDF-NPr (COMET-FpG)=79.9%, P=0.008 in raw semen; SDF-Pr (COMET-FpG)=50.0% vs. SDF-NPr (COMET-FpG)=65.5%, P=0.024 in selected sperm, n=53 | |||
| Simon et al.72 (2011) | IVF | FR (r2=0.243, P=0.050 in raw semen; r2=0.276, P=0.025 in selected sperm); embryo quality (r2=−0.415, P=0.002 in raw semen; r2=−0.373, P=0.007) in selected sperm), n=75 | |
| Lewis et al.96 (2004) | ICSI | There was no significant relationship between SDF and FR, n=77 |
Abbreviations: ART, assisted reproduction techniques; CP, clinical pregnancy; ER, embryo loss; FpG, formamidopyrimidine DNA glycosilase; FR, fertilisation rate; ICSI, intracytoplasmic sperm injection; IR, implantation rate; IVF, in vitro fertilisation; NPr, non-pregnancy; NS, not significant; Pr, pregnancy; PrL, pregnancy loss; SDF, sperm DNA fragmentation.