Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T19:57:00.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Therapeutic insemination by donor I: A review of its efficacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

John K Critser  and
Jeanne V Linden
John K Critser
Affiliation:
Cryobiology Research Institute, Methodist Hospital of Indiana, Indianapolis, Indiana
Jeanne V Linden*
Affiliation:
Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York, USA
*
Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research, New York State Department of Health, PO Box 509, Albany, NY 12201–0509, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Of all the assisted reproductive technologies in current use, artificial insemination has by far the longest history. While the earliest verifiable reports using this technique date to the eighteenth century for nonhuman artificial insemination and to the nineteenth century for human artificial insemination, systematic use of this approach to assist reproduction did not occur until the early part of this century. During the early 1900s, in Russia, Ivanov developed methods for semen collection from and insemination of horses. These techniques were later modified to apply to other agriculturally important species so that by the 1930s, millions of horses, cattle and sheep were being bred using artificial insemination. The adaptation of widespread use of artificial insemination (primarily in cattle) in agriculture extended to Britain in the early 1940s and to the USA in the 1950s. Corresponding implementation of artificial insemination in human reproductive medicine closely followed these innovations in the animal husbandry field.

Type
Articles
Information
Reproductive Medicine Review , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 9 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

1Critser, JK, Coulam, CB. Role of assisted reproduction in the treatment of infertility. In: Coulam, CB, Faulk, WP, McIntyre, JA eds. Immunological obstetrics. New York: WW Norton, 1992: 794–815.Google Scholar
2Barwin, BN. Artificial insemination. In: Paulson, JD, Negro-Vilar, A, Lucena, E, Martini, L, eds. Andrology: male fertility and sterility. New York: Academic Press, 1986: 461–74.Google Scholar
3Rohleder, H. Test tube babies: a history of the artificial impregnation of human beings. New York: Panurge, 1934.Google Scholar
4Schellen, A, Kleegman, SL. Artificial insemination in the human. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1957.Google Scholar
5Finegold, WJ. Artificial insemination. Springfield: Thomas, 1976.Google Scholar
6Polge, C. Development and current status of AI in animal breeding. In: Brudenall, M, McLaren, A, Short, R, Symonds, M eds. Artificial insemination: proceedings of the fourth study group of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. London: The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 1957:11–20.Google Scholar
7Austin, CR. Biological basis of insemination, sperm transport, capacitation and fertilization. In: Brudenell, M, McLaren, A, Short, R, Symonds, M eds. Artificial insemination: proceedings of the fourth study group of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. London: The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 1976:1–10.Google Scholar
8Polge, C, Lovelock, JE. Preservation of bull semen at −70°C. Vet Rec 1952; 64: 296–97.Google Scholar
9Polge, C, Rowson, LEA. Fertilizing capacity of bull spermatozoa after freezing at −79°C. Nature 1952; 169: 626–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Iritani, A. Problems of freezing spermatozoa of different species. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Animal Reproduction and Artificial Insemination (Madrid). 1980; 1: 115–32.Google Scholar
11Sherman, JK. Research on frozen human semen: past, present and future. Fertil Steril 1964; 15: 485–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Sherman, JK. Current status of clinical cryobanking of human sperm. In: Paulson, JD, Negro-Vilar, A, Lucena, E, Martini, L eds. Andrology: male fertility and sterility. New York: Academic Press, 1986: 517–47.Google Scholar
13Sherman, JK. Synopsis of the use of frozen human semen since 1964: state of the art of human semen banking. Fertil Steril 1973; 24: 397–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Behrman, SJ. Artificial insemination. In: Behrman, SJ, Kistner, RW eds. Progress in infertility. Boston: Little Brown, 1968: 779–89.Google Scholar
15Kleegman, SJ. Therapeutic donor insemination. Conn Med 1967; 31: 705–13.Google ScholarPubMed
16Kordimon, S. Artificial insemination in the Talmud. Harofe Haivrc, 1942–1943, Hebrew, P62: English translation p. 164.Google Scholar
17Sherman, JK. Banks for frozen human semen: current status and prospects. In: The integrity of frozen spermatozoa. Washington DC: National Academy of Science – National Research Council, 1978: 78–91.Google Scholar
18Mosher, WD. Infertility trends among US couples, 1965–1976. Farn Plann Perspect 1982; 14: 22–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States. Artificial insemination: practice in the United States. Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1988.Google Scholar
20Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States. Infertility: medical and social choices. Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1988.Google Scholar
21Bordson, BL, Ricci, E, Dickey, RP, Dunaway, H, Taylor, SN, Curole, DN. Comparison of fecundability with fresh and frozen semen in therapeutic donor insemination. Fertil Steril 1986; 46: 466–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Richardson, DW. Factors influencing the fertility of frozen semen. In: Richardson, DW, Joyce, D, Symonds, EM eds. Frozen human semen. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 1980: 33–58.Google Scholar
23David, G, Price, WS. Semen freezing in 0.5 and 0.25 ml straws. In: David, G, Price, WS eds. Human artificial insemination and semen preservation. New York: Plenum Press, 1980:161–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Keel, BA, Webster, BW. Semen analysis data from fresh and cryopreserved donor ejaculates: comparison of cryoprotectants and pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril 1989; 52: 100–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Schoysman-Deboeck, A, Schoysman, R. Clinical comparison of fresh and frozen semen. In: David, G, Price, WS eds. Human artificial insemination and semen preservation. New York: Plenum Press, 1980: 295–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Steinberger, E, Rodriguez-Rigau, LJ, Smith, KD. Comparison of results of AID with fresh and frozen semen. In: David, G, Price, WS eds. Human artificial insemination and semen preservation. New York: Plenum Press, 1980:283–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Schwartz, D, Mayaux, MJ. Mode of evaluation of results in artificial insemination. In: David, G, Price, WS eds. Human artificial insemination and semen preservation. New York: Plenum Press, 1980: 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Cramer, DW, Walker, AM, Schiff, I. Statistical methods in evaluating the outcome of infertility therapy. Fertil Steril 1979; 32: 80–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Cox, DR, Oakes, D eds. The scope of survival analysis. In: Analysis of survival data. London: Chapman and Hall, 1984:1–12.Google Scholar
30Guzick, DS, Rock, JA. Estimation of a model of cumulative pregnancy following infertility therapy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 140: 573–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Leridon, H. Human fertility: the basic components. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1977.Google Scholar
32Bergquist, CA, Rock, JA, Miller, J, Guzick, DS, Wentz, AC, Jones, GS. Artificial insemination with fresh donor semen using the cervical cap technique: a review of 278 cases. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 60: 195–99.Google ScholarPubMed
33Richter, MA, Haning, RV Jr, Shapiro, SS. Artificial donor insemination: fresh vs frozen semen; the patient as her own control. Fertil Steril 1984; 41: 277–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Hammond, MG, Jordan, S, Sloan, CS. Factors affecting pregnancy rates in a donor insemination program using frozen semen. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 155: 480–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35Brown, CA, Boone, WR, Shapiro, SS. Improved cryopreserved semen fecundability in an alternating fresh-frozen artificial insemination program. Fertil Steril 1988; 50: 825–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Mahadevan, M. Cryobiological and biochemical studies of human semen [Dissertation]. Melbourne, Australia: Queen Victoria Medical Centre, Monash University, 1981.Google Scholar
37Albrecht, BH, Cramer, D, Schiff, I. Factors influencing the success of artificial insemination. Fertil Steril 1982; 37: 792–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38Leeton, J, Seiwood, T, Trounson, A, Wood, C. Artificial donor insemination. Frozen versus fresh semen. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1980; 20: 205–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Smith, KD, Rodriquez-Rigau, LJ, Steinberger, E. The influence of ovulatory dysfunction and timing of insemination on the success of artificial insemination donor (AID) with fresh or cryopreserved semen. Fertil Steril 1981; 36: 496–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40Federation, CECOS, Le Lannou, D, Lansac, J. Artificial procreation with frozen donor semen: experience of the French Federation CECOS. Hum Reprod 1989; 4: 757–61.Google Scholar
41Emperaire, JC, Gauzere-Soumireu, E, Audebert, AJM. Female fertility and donor insemination. Fertil Steril 1982; 37: 90–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42Shapiro, SS. Can timing improve therapeutic donor insemination fecundability? Fertil Steril 1991; 55: 869–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43Critser, JK, Arneson, BW, Aaker, DV, Huse-Benda, AR, Ball, GD. Cryopreservation of human spermatozoa. II. Postthaw chronology of motility and of zona-free hamster ova penetration. Fertil Steril 1987; 47: 980–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44Younger, JB, Boots, LR, Coleman, C. The use of a one-day luteinizing hormone assay for timing of artificial insemination in infertility patients. Fertil Steril 1978; 30: 648–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45Matthews, CD, Broom, TJ, Crawshaw, KM, Hopkins, RE, Kerin, JF, Svigos, JM. The influence of insemination timing and semen characteristics on the efficiency of a donor insemination program. Fertil Steril 1979; 31: 45–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46Centola, GM, Mattox, JH, Raubertas, RF. Pregnancy rates after double versus single insemination with frozen donor semen. Fertil Steril 1990; 54: 1089–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47Byrd, W, Bradshaw, K, Carr, B, Edman, C, Odom, J, Ackerman, G. A prospective randomized study of pregnancy rates following intrauterine and intracervical insemination using frozen donor sperm. Fertil Steril 1990; 53: 521–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48Patton, PE, Burry, KA, Thurman, A, Novy, MJ, Wolf, DP. Intrauterine insemination outperforms intracervical insemination in a randomized, controlled study with frozen, donor semen. Fertil Steril 1992; 57: 559–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49Barratt, CLR, Cooke, S, Chauhan, M, Cooke, ID. A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing urinary luteinizing hormone dipsticks and basal body temperature charts with timed donor insemination. Fertil Steril 1989; 52: 394–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50Silva, PD, Meisch, J, Schauberger, CW. Intrauterine insemination of cryopreserved donor semen. Fertil Steril 1989; 52: 243–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51Patton, PE, Burry, KA, Novy, MJ, Wolf, DP. A comparative evaluation of intracervical and intrauterine routes in donor therapeutic insemination. Hum Reprod 1990; 5: 263–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52Brown, CA, Boone, WR, Shapiro, SS. Improved cryopreserved semen fecundability in an alternating fresh-frozen artificial insemination program. Fertil Steril 1988; 50: 825–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53American Fertility Society. New guidelines for the use of semen donor insemination: 1990. Fertil Steril 1990; 53 (suppl 1): 1S–13S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54Moghissi, KS. Reflections on the new guidelines for the use of semen donor insemination. Fertil Steril 1990; 53: 399–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55Committee on Gynecologic Practice. Maximizing pregnancy rates resulting from donor insemination with frozen semen. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion, 1990; no. 84.Google Scholar
56Le Lannou, D. Choix des donneurs et résultats de la congélation du sperme humain. Fertilité-Sexualité-Contraception 1991; 19: 869–75.Google Scholar