Autologous sperm usage after cryopreservation-the crucial impact of patients' characteristics.

BACKGROUND: The wide implementation of sperm freezing presents a growing burden on sperm banks. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate sperm freezing and usage patterns over 30 years, according to demographic parameters of age at first cryopreservation and number of children, and indication for cryopreservation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective, population based, cohort study included all sperm cryopreservation cases performed at a tertiary referral center from October 1993 to December 2021, among patients aged 18 years and older. First, we determined the interval between first sperm sample and use. Then, we examined sperm usage separately for: (1) age, comparing patients grouped into 5-year age cohorts; (2) paternal status according to number of children; (3) indication, comparison among seven indications. Secondary analysis included correlations between main age groups and paternal status versus the four most common indications found. RESULTS: During the study period 1490 men who cryopreserved sperm met the inclusion criteria. Average age at cryopreservation of the first sample was 33.9 ± 8.1 years. Average age at first sperm use was 37 ± 8.5 years. Cumulative sperm usage was 38.7% after 17.8 years. Increasing age was associated with progressive increase in sperm usage rate and shorter preservation period. Use significantly decreased with increasing number of children. Examination of seven reasons for sperm cryopreservation found the highest cumulative sperm usage was related to azoospermia (67.7%), followed by functional cryopreservation (39.3%), oligoasthenoteratospermia (27.3%), other (26.5%), patient's request (24%), cancer (19%), and systemic disease (7.2%). Secondary analysis defined specific usage patterns mainly related to age and indication, with less of an effect based on the number of children. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: After decades of cryopreservation, the paradigm of sperm cryopreservation is mostly related to cancer patients. This should be reevaluated and evolve to include broader patient-targeted factors and perceptions.

Sperm Donors' Identity Disclosure: Is It REALLY Crucial? For Whom?

OBJECTIVE: To study the preference of sperm donors with identity disclosure (ID) versus anonymous donors (AD) and to understand if this selection affects clinical outcomes in an Israeli population. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who chose imported sperm donation during 2017-2021. Of these, 526 used their own (autologous) oocytes and 43 patients used donated oocytes (DO). The primary endpoint was the type of chosen donor with ID versus AD. We examined the tendency toward ID according to demographic parameters and the theoretical impact of donor-type selection on reproductive outcome and compared patients who performed cycles with autologous oocytes with those using DO. RESULTS: Single women had a significantly higher probability of choosing sperm donors with ID than heterosexual couples (55.6% vs. 33.3%, OR 2.5, CI 95% 1.52-4.11, P < 0.001). Although not significant, same-sex couples were more likely to choose sperm donors with ID than heterosexual couples (49.1% vs. 33.3%, OR 1.93, CI 95% 0.97-3.85, P = 0.06). Sperm donor samples, 2501 vials, were imported. It was performed 698 intra-uterine insemination and 812 in vitro fertilization cycles were performed, respectively, resulting in 283 pregnancies without differences between patients who chose sperm donors with ID versus AD sperm. No significant differences were observed regarding the option for sperm donors with ID between patients using DO (44.2%) and those using autologous oocytes (51.3%). CONCLUSION: While ID is important for a certain section (mainly single) of recipients, it is far from the only dominant factor during donor selection. Sperm donation type does not impact clinical outcomes.

Critical Demographic Changes among Sperm Donation Recipients Over Three Decades.

BACKGROUND: Sperm banks initially focused on providing sperm donation (SD) to heterosexual couples grappling with severe male infertility. Notable advancements in fertility treatments and sociological trends have broadened the scope of SD toward single women and same sex female couples. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate SD recipient characteristics over the last three decades in Israel according to demographic parameters. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 5489 women who received SD between January 1992 and December 2021 from a tertiary referral center. We divided the overall period into six groups of five years each. A comparison of demographic characteristics of women who received SD in different periods was performed according to age at the beginning of the treatment, marital status (single women and same sex female couples, heterosexual couples), and ethnic origin. RESULTS: The average age of women who received SD was 37.02 ± 5.36 years. The average patient age rose from 35.08 years in 1992-1997 to 37.43 years in 2017-2021 (P-value < 0.01). The use of SD was more common among single women and same sex female couples compared to heterosexual couples in later years. Regarding single and same sex female couple, the percentage of SD recipients increased radically from 33% to 88.1% (P-value < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Modern sperm banks treat older patients in non-heterosexual relationships. These trends encompass not only medical implications (e.g., in vitro fertilization vs. intrauterine insemination) but also delve into the personal and sociological impact experienced by both patients and offspring.

What can we learn about posthumous sperm retrieval after extra long-term follow-up?

PURPOSE: To describe spermatozoa extraction rate by testicular sperm extraction (TESE) for posthumous sperm retrieval (PMSR) and examine harvest time impact on sperm motility; to compare long-term sperm usage between married vs. single deceased men. METHODS: This retrospective study included all PMSR cases in Shamir Medical Center during 2003-2021. We evaluated sperm cryopreservation according to latency time after death. Then, we assessed sperm usage according to Israeli PMSR regulations. RESULTS: The study included 69 (35 married and 34 singles) deceased men with average age of 30.3 ± 7.8 years. Sperm was cryopreserved in 65 cases (94.2%) after maximum and average harvest time of 40 and 16.5 ± 8.1 h, respectively. Motile sperm extraction was associated with significantly shorter harvest time compared with non-motile sperm (13.8 ± 7.3 vs. 18.7 ± 8.1 h, p = 0.046). Sperm usage among married deceased was significantly higher than single (15.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.05). Disposal requests were lower among single compared to married men relatives without reaching statistical difference. Eventually, single men had significantly higher rate of non-used cryopreserved samples (93.8% vs 69.6%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: This large long-term cohort study demonstrates high efficacy of PMSR. We found significant harvest latency time difference between motile and non-motile preserved sperm. Clinical sperm usage rate justifies the efforts for PMSR among married deceased. However, contradicting policy on the topic of single men (which implies liberal sperm preservation but rigid prevention of usage) results with high non-used sperm rate and relatives' extremely sophisticated emotional burden.