| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3898007 | Urology | 2015 | 8 Pages |
ObjectiveTo compare cryosurvival rates between remote collections with NextGen kit (offsite) and onsite collection of semen samples from infertile men and those with cancer.MethodsPrefreeze 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.ResultsIn 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).ConclusionCancer patients can bank sperm as effectively as men banking for infertility reasons using the NextGen kit.
