| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
From the * Department of Urology, the University
of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; and the
Reproductive Genetics Institute, Chicago,
Illinois.
| Correspondence to (current address): Dr Moshe Wald, University of Iowa, Department of Urology, 200 Hawkins Drive, 3 RCP, Iowa City, IA 52242-1089 (e-mail: moshe-wald{at}uiowa.edu). |
2 P-
< .02, Cramer's 
0.04).
The fertilization rate for the TESE group alone was 60.0% for cryopreserved
sperm and 55.1% for fresh sperm (2 P- = .075). Cohen
effect size was computed at 0.03; yielding for P-ß = .8, 6597 ova would
be required to demonstrate similarity between fresh and cryopreserved sperm in
the TESE group. To demonstrate superiority of cryopreserved sperm in this
group at a P- significance level of .05, 7524 ova would be necessary.
The pregnancy rate for the TESE group was 27.3% for cryopreserved sperm and
27% for fresh sperm. Further analysis of the pregnancy data in this group,
using the methods described, yielded a 2 P- and power
of 0.971 (effect size calculated at 0.002). While our fertilization rates for
cryopreserved sperm are greater in analyses of surgically derived sperm, based
on the 7 years required to obtain data on 3280 ova, full numerical resolution
of the issue of whether cryopreserved sperm is superior or similar will not be
available until approximately 2010. However, we believe these results, along
with the similarity shown in pregnancy rates achieved with both types of
sperm, clearly indicate that cryopreserved sperm is not inferior to fresh
sperm.
Key words: Pregnancy, spermatozoa, fertilization, cryopreservation, reproductive techniques
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
