JBRA Assisted Reproduction 2025;29(Suppl.2 SBRA 2025):225
Poster Presentation
29^th Annual Congress of the SBRA. São Paulo/SP - Brazil, 2025
doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20263856

P-213. Sperm selection by Microfluidics: Comparative Analysis between Zymot^® and Leenshoke^®

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

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

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of different microfluidic devices, Zymot^® and Leenshoke^®, in sperm sample selection, evaluating their separation and cell enrichment mechanisms, with emphasis on the sperm quality parameters obtained motility, concentration, and morphology of the sample.
Methods: A semen sample obtained after 2 days of sexual abstinence was used, with a total volume of 3,5 mL, presenting parameters within the reference range for motility, concentration, and sperm morphology according to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2021). The sample was homogenized and divided into three aliquots of 1 mL each: (i) fresh analysis, (ii) processing using the microfluidic device Zymot^®, and (iii) processing using the microfluidic device Leenshoke^®. Both microfluidic techniques were conducted according to the specific protocols of each manufacturer, using MHM culture medium previously heated to 37 °C. The devices were kept in the incubator at 37 °C for 30 minutes. After processing, progressive motility, concentration, and sperm morphology were again evaluated. The results obtained after processing in each microfluidic device were compared to the fresh state, considering the recovery rate of motility, concentration, and morphological quality.
Results: In the fresh semen sample (analysis i), progressive motility (A+B) was 39%, while 31% of spermatozoa were immotile (D), with a concentration of 100×10⁶/mL. Following processing with the microfluidic Zymot^® device (analysis ii), progressive motility (A+B) increased significantly to 90%, with complete elimination of immotile spermatozoa (D), resulting in a recovered concentration of 5×10⁶/mL. Processing with the LeensHoke^® device (analysis iii) further increased progressive motility (A+B) to 96%, also with no spermatozoa in class D, and a recovered concentration of 8×10⁶/mL. Comparison of sperm morphology revealed that, in the fresh semen sample, 12% of spermatozoa exhibited normal morphology out of 100 cells evaluated. In contrast, the Zymot^® method yielded 20% of spermatozoa with normal morphology, while the LeensHoke^® device recovered 30% of morphologically normal spermatozoa, considering the same number of evaluated cells.
Conclusion: Semen processing using microfluidic devices significantly improved sperm parameters compared to the fresh sample. Both Zymot^® and LeensHoke^® substantially increased progressive motility and completely eliminated immotile spermatozoa, although LeensHoke^® demonstrated greater efficiency in cellular recovery. Although microfluidic protocols do not specifically aim to improve sperm morphology, an increase in the proportion of morphologically normal spermatozoa was observed, with 20% for Zymot^® and 30% for LeensHoke^®, compared to 12% in the fresh sample. These findings indicate that the use of microfluidic technologies can optimize sperm quality, potentially enhancing outcomes in assisted reproduction procedures.