Skip to main content
Log in

The role of hyaluronic acid binding assay in choosing the fertilization method for patients undergoing IVF for unexplained infertility

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Patients with unexplained infertility may have fertilization problems. Split fertilization (ICSI and conventional IVF on sibling oocytes) is often used to avoid poor fertilization. Our aim was to assess the ability of hyaluronic acid binding (HA-binding) assay to predict spontaneous fertilization during IVF.

Methods

Prospective, blinded, controlled trial. Patients undergoing their first IVF cycle for unexplained infertility were eligible. Split fertilization was used. IVF and ICSI fertilization rates and embryo development based on 3 HA-binding cut-offs (< 60%; 60–80%; >80%) were compared.

Results

ICSI fertilization was higher than IVF, but none of the HA-binding cut-off levels predicted those cases where IVF was less effective, therefore ICSI only would have lead to improved outcome. Embryo development and morphology were similar in all cut-off groups.

Conclusions

HA-binding did not predict spontaneous fertilization in patients with unexplained infertility undergoing IVF treatment. When it was used for “screening” it did not help to select the method of fertilization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Isaksson R, Tiitinen A. Superovulation combined with insemination or timed intercourse in the treatment of couples with unexplained infertility and minimal or mild endometriosis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997;76:550–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Adamson GD. Treatment of endometriosis-associated infertility. Semin Reprod Endocrinol. 1997;15:263–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chung CC, Fleming R, Jamieson ME, Yates RW, Coutts JR. Randomized comparison of ovulation induction with and without intrauterine insemination in the treatment of unexplained infertility. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:3139–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Van der Westerlaken LA, Naaktgeboren N, Helmerhorst FM. Evaluation of pregnancy rates after intrauterine insemination according to indication, age, and sperm parameters. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1998;15:359–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Campana A, Sakkas D, Stalberg A, Bianchi PG, Comte I, Pache T, et al. Intrauterine insemination: evaluation of the results according to the woman’s age, sperm quality, total sperm count per insemination and life table analysis. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:732–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Guzick GS, Carson SA, Coutifaris C, Overstreet JW, Factor-Litvak P, Steinkampf MP, et al. Efficacy of superovulation and intrauterine insemination in the treatment of infertility. National Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:177–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Goverde AJ, Lambalk CJ, McDonell J, Schats R, Homburg R, Vermeiden JP. Further considerations on natural or mild hyperstimulation cycles for intrauterine insemination treatment: effects on pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:3141–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gleicher N, Barad D. Unexplained infertility: does it really exist? Hum Reprod. 2006;21:1951–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Aitken RJ. Sperm function tests and fertility. Int J Androl. 2006;29:69–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Weber RF, Dohle GR, Romijn JC. Clinical laboratory evaluation of male subfertility. Adv Clin Chem. 2005;40:317–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Huszar G, Jakab A, Sakkas D, Celik-Ozenci C, Cayli S, Delpiano E, et al. Fertility testing and ICSI sperm selection by hyaluronic acid binding: clinical and genetic aspects. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14:650–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Huszar G, Celik-Ozenci C, Cayli S, Zavaczki Z, Hansch E, Vigue L. Hyaluronic acid binding by human sperm indicates cellular maturity, viability, and unreacted acrosomal status. Fertil Steril. 2003;79:1616–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jakab A, Sakkas D, Delpiano E, Cayli S, Kovanci E, Ward D, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a novel selection method for sperm with normal frequency of chromosomal aneuploidies. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1665–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Huszar G, Celik-Ozenci C, Vigue L. Sperm maturity and fertility: testing by hyaluronic acid binding. Abstarct 18th Annual meeting of the ESHRE. Hum Rerod. 2002;17(Suppl 1):9 O–024.

  15. Bungum L, Bungum M, Humaidan P, Andersen CY. A strategy for treatment of couples with unexplained infertility who failed to conceive after intrauterine insemination. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;8:584–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hershlag A, Paine T, Kvapil G, Feng H, Napolitano B. In vitro fertilization—intracytoplasmic sperm injection split: an insemination method to prevent fertilization failure. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:229–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Takeuchi S, Minoura H, Shibahara T, Shen X, Futamura N, Toyoda N. In vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection for couples with unexplained infertility after failed direct intraperitoneal insemination. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2000;17:515–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jaroudi K, Al-Hassan S, Al-Sufayan H, Al-Mayman H, Qeba M, Coskun S. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection and conventional in vitro fertilization are complementary techniques in the management of unexplained infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003;20:377–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Van Rumste MM, Evers JL, Farquhar CM. ICSI versus conventional techniques for oocyte insemination during IVF in patients with non-male factor subfertility: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:223–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tournaye H, Verheyen G, Albano C, Camus M, Van Lunduyt L, Devroey P, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial and a meta-analysis of the literature. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:1030–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Van der Westerlaken L, Naaktgeboren N, Verburg H, Dieben S, Helmerhorst FM. Conventional in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in patients with borderline semen: a randomized study using sibling oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:395–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pisarska MD, Casson PR, Cisneros PL, Lamb DJ, Lipshultz LI, Buster JE, et al. Fertilization after standard in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in subfertile males using sibling oocytes. Fertil Steril. 1999;71:627–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bhattacharya S, Hamilton MPR, Shaaban M, Khalaf Y, Seddler M, Ghobara T, et al. Conventional in-vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection for the treatment of non-male factor infertility: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2001;357:2075–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ruiz A, Remohi J, Minguez Y, Guanes PP, Somin C, Pellicier A. The role of in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in couples with unexplained infertility after failed intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 1997;68:171–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ye H, Huang GN, Gao Y, de Liu Y. Relationship between human sperm-hyaluronan binding assay and fertilization rate in conventional in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:1545–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tarozzi N, Nadalini M, Bizzaro D, Serrao L, Fava L, Scaravelli G, et al. Sperm-hyaluronan-binding assay: clinical value in conventional IVF under Italian law. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19 Suppl 3:35–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nijs M, Creemers E, Cox A, Franssen K, Janssen M, Vanheusden E, et al. Chromomycin A3 staining, sperm chromatin structure assay and hyaluronic acid binding assay predictors for assisted reproductive outcome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19:671–684.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Kovacs.

Additional information

Capsule HA binding did not help in selecting IVF or ICSI fertilization in those cases when the first IVF cycle was initiated following failed IUIs and unexplained infertility.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kovacs, P., Kovats, T., Sajgo, A. et al. The role of hyaluronic acid binding assay in choosing the fertilization method for patients undergoing IVF for unexplained infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet 28, 49–54 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-010-9479-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-010-9479-3

Keywords

Navigation