Review Article
The Potential Use of Intrauterine Insemination as a Basic Option for Infertility: A Review for Technology-Limited Medical Settings
Table 2
Sperm preparation methods.
| Author | Year | Design (prospective or retrospective) | Number of infertile patients | Number of insemination cycles | Method of preparation | IUI outcome |
| Carrell et al. | 1998 | Prospective | 363 | 898 | Sperm wash | PR 8.9% | -Swim-up | 14.7% | -Swim-down | 7.7% | -Percoll density gradient | 16.1% | -Sperm refrigeration/heparin incubation | 11% |
| Dodson et al. | 1998 | Prospective | 80 | 153 | Double cenrifugation | CF 15% | -Swim-up | 14% | -Percoll density gradient | 20% |
| Morshedi et al. | 2003 | Prospective | 311 | 676 | Simple wash | PR 11.6% | -Density gradient | 14.3% |
| Lan et al. | 2004 | Prospective | 140 | NA | Swim-up | PR 15% | -Percoll density gradient | 20% | -Wang's tube method | 45% |
| Ren et al. | 2004 | Prospective | NA | 317 | Albumin | PR 12.5% | -Puresperm | 7.4% | -Swim-up | 9.6% | -Percoll density gradient | 12.7% |
|
|
PR: Pregnancy rate; CF: Cycle fecundity; NA: Not available.
|