Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T04:57:05.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 16 - Donor Insemination: Past, Present and Future Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2020

By
Christopher L. R. Barratt ,
Rachel Agnew  and
Eleanor Heighton
Edited by
R. John Aitken ,
David Mortimer  and
Gabor Kovacs
R. John Aitken
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle, New South Wales
David Mortimer
Affiliation:
Oozoa Biomedical Inc, Vancouver
Gabor Kovacs
Affiliation:
Epworth Healthcare Melbourne
Get access

Summary

Donor insemination (DI) has undergone radical changes in the last 25 years, for example exclusive use of frozen semen, and increasing use of DI for single women. A summary of these is presented as are the potential challenges we still face. The latter include key questions such as what are the key methods for optimising treatment. Can we improve our success rates? If so, how can this be done? Moreover, the use of DI as a research tool, often ignored, is presented.

Keywords

donor inseminationspermatozoacryopreservationHIVsuccess ratestiming of insemination.
Type
Chapter
Information
Male and Sperm Factors that Maximize IVF Success , pp. 189 - 198
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Stewart, G. J., Tyler, J. P., Cunningham, A. L., Barr, J. A., Driscoll, G. L., Gold, J., et al. (1985) Transmission of human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III (HTLV-III) by artificial insemination by donor. Lancet 14:581–585.Google Scholar
Indekeu, A., Dierickx, K., Schotsmans, P., Daniels, K. R., Rober, P. and D’Hooghe, T. (2013) Factors contributing to parental decision-making in disclosing donor conception: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 19:714–733.Google Scholar
Lassalzede, T., Paci, M., Rouzier, J., Carez, S., Gnisci, A., Saias-Magnan, J., et al. (2017) Sperm donor conception and disclosure to children: a 10-year retrospective follow-up study of parental attitudes in one French center for the study and preservation of eggs and sperm (CECOS). Fertil Steril 108:247–253.Google Scholar
Kalampalikis, N., Doumergue, M. and Zadeh, S. (2018) French Federation of CECOS. Sperm donor regulation and disclosure intentions: results from a nationwide multi-centre study in France. Reprod Biomed Soc Online 10(5):38–45.Google Scholar
Kovacs, G., Wise, S. and Finch, S. (2013) Functioning of families involving primary school-age children conceived using anonymous donor sperm. Hum Reprod 28:375–384.Google Scholar
Zadeh, S. (2016) Disclosure of donor conception in the era of non-anonymity: safeguarding and promoting the interests of donor-conceived individuals? Hum Reprod 31:2416–2420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGovern, P. G. and Schlaff, W. D. (2018) Sperm donor anonymity: a concept rendered obsolete by modern technology. Fertil Steril 109:230–231.Google Scholar
Thepot, F., Mayaux, M. J., Czyglick, F., Wack, T., Selva, J. and Jalbert, P. (1996) Incidence of birth defects after artificial insemination with frozen donor spermatozoa: a collaborative study of the French CECOS Federation on 11,535 pregnancies. Hum Reprod 11:2319–2323.Google Scholar
Lansac, J. and Royere, D. (2001) Follow-up studies of children born after frozen sperm donation. Hum Reprod Update 7:33–37.Google Scholar
Kamath, M. S., Antonisamy, B., Selliah, H. Y., La Marca, A. and Sunkara, S. K. (2018) Perinatal outcomes following IVF with use of donor versus partner sperm. Reprod Biomed Online 36:705–710.Google Scholar
Gerkowicz, S. A., Crawford, S. B., Hipp, H. S., Boulet, S. L. and Kissin, D. M. (2018) Assisted reproductive technology with donor sperm: national trends and perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 421.e1–421.e10.Google Scholar
David, G., Czyglik, F., Mayaux, M. J., Martin-Boyce, A. and Schwartz, D. (1980) Artificial insemination with frozen sperm: protocol, method of analysis and results for 1,188 women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 87:1022–1028.Google Scholar
Kop, P. A., Mochtar, M. H., O’Brien, P. A., Van der Veen, F. and van Wely, M. (2018) Intrauterine insemination versus intracervical insemination in donor sperm treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD000317.Google ScholarPubMed
ESHRE Capri Workshop Group (2018)Protect us from poor-quality medical research. Hum Reprod 33:770–776.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Purata, J., Latre, L., Ballester, M., González-Llagostera, C., Rodríguez, I., Gonzalez-Foruria, I., et al. (2018) Clinical success of IUI cycles with donor sperm is not affected by total inseminated volume: a RCT. Hum Reprod Open 2:hoy002.Google Scholar
Hezavehei, M., Sharafi, M., Kouchesfahani, H. M., Henkel, R., Agarwal, A., Esmaeili, V., et al. (2018) Sperm cryopreservation: a review on current molecular cryobiology and advanced approaches. Reprod Biomed Online 37:327–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benson, J. D., Woods, E. J., Walters, E. M. and Critser, J. K. (2012) The cryobiology of spermatozoa. Theriogenology 78:1682–1699.Google Scholar
Thyer, A. C., Patton, P. E., Burry, K. A., Mixon, B. A. and Wolf, D. P. (1999) Fecundability trends among sperm donors as a measure of donor performance. Fertil Steril 71:891–895.Google Scholar
Barratt, C. L., Clements, S. and Kessopoulou, E. (1998) Semen characteristics and fertility tests required for storage of spermatozoa. Hum Reprod 13(Suppl 2):1–7.Google Scholar
Barratt, C. L. R., Björndahl, L., De Jonge, C. J., Lamb, D. J., Osorio Martini, F., McLachlan, R., et al. (2017) The diagnosis of male infertility: an analysis of the evidence to support the development of global WHO guidance-challenges and future research opportunities. Hum Reprod Update 23:660–680.Google Scholar
Schinfeld, J., Sharara, F., Morris, R., Palermo, G. D., Rosenwaks, Z., Seaman, E., et al. (2018) Cap-Score™ prospectively predicts probability of pregnancy. Mol Reprod Dev 85:654–664.Google Scholar
Bonache, S., Mata, A., Ramos, M. D., Bassas, L. and Larriba, S. (2012) Sperm gene expression profile is related to pregnancy rate after insemination and is predictive of low fecundity in normozoospermic men. Hum Reprod 27:1556–1567.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×