JBRA Assisted Reproduction 2025;29(Suppl.2 SBRA 2025):52
Poster Presentation
29^th Annual Congress of the SBRA. São Paulo/SP - Brazil, 2025
doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20263591

P-40. Comparative Analysis of Sperm Processing Techniques and Their Impact on Blastocyst Formation Rates in IVF

Amandia Ramos Batschauer¹, Gabriella Mendes Neves¹, Eduarda Rocha Bauer¹, Yasmin Cristine Michelino¹, Lorenna Brito del Vecchio¹

¹Triamare Ginecologia e Reprodução Humana - CURITIBA - PR - Brasil

Objective: To compare the efficacy of two sperm processing techniques, microfluidic (ZyMot^®) and Swim-Up on fertilization rates and embryonic development up to the blastocyst stage in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. This study evaluates whether microfluidic sperm selection, which allows stringent selection by reducing DNA fragmentation and selecting sperm with superior motility, offers advantages over conventional swim-up in terms of embryonic quality and laboratory outcomes.
Methods: This is a retrospective study analyzing data collected between 2024 and 2025, involving an average of 500 patients undergoing IVF with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Patients were divided into two groups based on the sperm preparation technique: the ZyMot^® group (n ≈ 100), indicated for cases with a history of smoking, varicocele, or high sperm DNA fragmentation; and the Swim-Up group (n ≈ 300), applied in other cases without specific clinical indications for microfluidics. For each group, fertilization rates, blastocyst formation rates, and the proportion of embryos considered viable, blastocysts with morphology suitable for embryonic biopsy, cryopreservation, or transfer.
Results: A total of 175 cases in the ZyMot^® group and 325 in the swim-up group were analyzed. The overall fertilization rate was significantly higher in the ZyMot^® group (82.41%) compared to the swim-up group (75.38%), indicating greater efficiency of the microfluidic technique in sperm selection and capacitation. Fertilization with two pronuclei (2PN), an important indicator of proper fertilization, also showed superior results in the ZyMot^® group (69.44% vs. 62.15%), suggesting a more favorable start in embryonic development. Furthermore, the blastocyst formation rate was significantly higher in the ZyMot^® group (68.00%) compared to swim-up (51.98%), indicating enhanced embryo viability and potential success. The proportion of viable blastocysts available for biopsy, cryopreservation, or transfer was also higher in the ZyMot^® group (52.00% vs. 38.61%). These results reinforce that microfluidics can improve both the quantity and quality of embryos, contributing to better IVF outcomes.
Conclusion: The benefits of ZyMot^® technology are well-documented in the scientific literature and are increasingly integrated into assisted reproduction laboratory practice. This technique is particularly valuable for patients with high sperm DNA fragmentation, which can compromise sperm quality and reduce treatment success. A noteworthy observation is the increase in blastocyst rates, meaning ZyMot^® facilitates a higher number of embryos reaching advanced developmental stages. While definitive evidence that this technology improves implantation rates is still lacking, these findings are promising, as more available blastocysts may offer additional transfer opportunities and potentially higher pregnancy chances. Further research is needed to rigorously assess the impact of ZyMot^® on implantation and pregnancy success, and comparative studies with other microfluidic techniques could broaden understanding of these methodologies’ efficacy. Therefore, although current results are encouraging and highlight the value of microfluidic sperm selection, continued scientific advancement is essential to consolidate these benefits and further optimize IVF clinical protocols.