TABLE 3.
DNA fragmentation of spermatozoa selected by hyaluronic acid.
| Groups compared | DNA fragmentation (%) | Type of male donors/patients (n) | DNA fragmentation technique | References |
| Unsorted | 32.87 ± 8.65 | Patients (77): Severe (13%), moderate (61%), and normospermic (26%) | SCD | Razavi et al., 2010 |
| PICSI | 30.94 ± 8.7 | |||
| Unsorted | 16.5a | Patients (20): Normozoospermic (12) and oligozoospermic (8) | SCD | Parmegiani et al., 2010a, b |
| SU | 11b | |||
| Microscopically selected | 11c | |||
| Sperm slow | 5.3d | |||
| Unsorted | 45 ± 1.9 | Patients (50) | AOF | Yagci et al., 2010 |
| PICSI | 0.9 ± 1.9∗∗ | |||
| DGC | 26,8 | Donors (50) | TUNEL | Mongkolchaipak and Vutyavanich, 2013 |
| DGC/PICSI | 2.6 | |||
| DGC/IMSI | 1.7 | |||
| DGC | 33.2a | Patients (46) | AOF | Huang et al., 2015 |
| Microscopically selected | 17.9b | |||
| PICSI | 16.1b | |||
Analysis of DNA fragmentation was conducted by Sperm Chromatin Dispersion (SCD) test, Acridin Orange fluorescence (AOF), or TUNEL. Values of % of DNA fragmentation are expressed as % ± SEM. ∗∗P < 0.01 and different letters indicate differences between groups (P < 0.05).