الفهرس 
AbstractOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 118 |  |  |
| | | from | 118 | | |
Abstract
Summary
This study was performed on 50 azoospermic males attending the Andrology clinic of a specialized IVF center (Adam international hospital, Giza, Egypt) for testicular sperm retrieval via microsurgical technique.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the technique of standardized aseptic technology of permeable cryoprotectant - free vitrification in micro-capillary system versus traditional slow freezing using a semi-automated device in cryopreservation of surgically retrieved sperm samples.
.
After statistical analysis, the results were as follows:
There was no significant difference in post thawing sperm motility between the two methods (vitrification /slow freezing) (3.68 % ± 1.928% vs 3.25 % ± 1.92%). Also there was no significant difference in mean percent of sperm motility recovery (from original motility) between the two methods (83.8% ± 25.70% vs 75.96% ± 30.142%) but a higher percent was obtained in the vitrification method.
A significant difference (P= 0.003) was detected in mean sperm motility between the original sperm sample and the post warming sample after slow freezing (4.48 % ± 2.092% vs 3.25 % ± 1.92%). Also a significant difference (P= 0.05) was detected in mean sperm motility between the original sperm sample and the post warming sample after vitrification (4.48 % ± 2.092% vs 3.68 % ± 1.928%).
On studying the difference between the two methods on the retrieval of sperm concentration, motility and percent of retrieval of original motility for each testicular histopathology category, no significant difference was found between the 2 methods except for the primary spermatocyte arrest group. A significant difference (P= 0.05) was detected in mean sperm motility between the original sperm sample and the post warming sample after slow freezing (5.14 % ± 2.60% vs 2.57 % ± 1.71%) and that difference was not found between the mean sperm motility between the original sperm sample and the post warming sample after vitrification (5.14 % ± 2.60% vs 4.14 % ± 1.57%).