NextGen Home Sperm Banking Kit: Outcomes of Offsite vs Onsite Collection--Preliminary Findings

Urology. 2015 Jun;85(6):1339-45. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.02.044.

Abstract

Objective: To compare cryosurvival rates between remote collections with NextGen kit (offsite) and onsite collection of semen samples from infertile men and those with cancer.

Methods: Prefreeze and post-thaw sperm motility, total motile sperm, and percent cryosurvival rates were compared between samples collected from infertile men onsite at the Andrology Center (n = 10) and samples collected from infertile patients at home (offsite; n = 9), which were shipped by NextGen to our laboratory. A second group (n = 17) consisted of 10 semen samples from cancer patients collected onsite, which were compared with 7 semen samples from cancer patients shipped by the NextGen. All semen samples were assessed within 18 hours of collection.

Results: In the infertile men, percent cryosurvival rates were similar with NextGen compared with those of onsite collection (53.14 ± 28.9% vs 61.90 ± 20.46%; P = .51). Similarly, in the cancer patients, all 4 parameters were comparable between the onsite and NextGen. Cryosurvival rates were also similar between NextGen compared with those of onsite collection (52.71 ± 20.37% vs 58.90 ± 22.68%; P = .46).

Conclusion: Cancer patients can bank sperm as effectively as men banking for infertility reasons using the NextGen kit.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Evaluation Study

MeSH terms

  • Cryopreservation*
  • Humans
  • Infertility, Male
  • Male
  • Neoplasms
  • Semen Analysis*
  • Semen Preservation*
  • Specimen Handling / methods*
  • Sperm Banks*