Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “INSEMINATION, ARTIFICIAL”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed2006

Major advances in globalization and consolidation of the artificial insemination industry.

The artificial insemination (AI) industry in the United States has gone through many consolidations, mergers, and acquisitions over the past 25 yr. There are 5 major AI companies in the United States today: 3 large cooperatives, 1 private company, and 1 public company. The latter 2 have majority ownership outside of the United States. The AI industry in the United States progeny-tests more than 1,000 Holstein young sires per year. Because healthy, mature dairy bulls are capable of producing well over 100,000 straws of frozen semen per year, only a relatively small number of bulls are needed to breed the world's population of dairy cows. Most AI companies in the United States do not own many, if any, females and tend to utilize the same maternal families in their breeding programs. Little differences exist among the selection programs of the AI companies in the United States. The similarity of breeding programs and the extreme semen-production capabilities of bulls have contributed to difficulties the AI companies have had in developing genetically different product lines. Exports of North American Holstein genetics increased steadily from the 1970s into the 1990s because of the perceived superiority of North American Holsteins for dairy traits compared with European strains, especially for production. The breeding industry moved towards international genetic evaluations of bulls in the 1990s, with the International Bull Evaluation Service (Interbull) in Sweden coordinating the evaluations. The extensive exchange of elite genetics has led to a global dairy genetics industry with bulls that are closely related, and the average inbreeding level for the major dairy breeds continues to increase. Genetic markers have been used extensively and successfully by the industry for qualitative traits, especially for recessive genetic disorders, but markers have had limited impact for quantitative traits. Selection emphasis continues to migrate away from production traits and towards nonproduction traits, especially towards health and fitness traits. Specifically, fertility has arguably become the major breeding and management issue facing dairy farmers today. Some producers have implemented crossbreeding programs in an effort to capitalize on heterosis, and crossbreeding will almost certainly need to be a bigger part of the AI companies business in the years ahead.

Animals↗
PubMed1990

[Artificial insemination].

The first artificial inseminations (AI), performed some 200 years ago, took place during menstruations since the ovulation and fertilization processes were then totally unknown. Nowadays, AI is usually carried out during the "ovulation period", which means a lack of accuracy in the estimated gametes meeting time which may reach several days. We formulate the hypothesis, supported by an analysis of international results, that AI is more effective when performed at the time of, or soon after follicular rupture, i.e. 36 to 48 hours after an endogenous (LH surge) or exogenous (hCG injection) induction, especially in case of male infertility. Under these conditions, it seems that intrauterine (rather than intracervical) AI performed after ovarian stimulation (and not in a spontaneous cycle) helps solve the problems of many infertile women before a more complex medical assistance is contemplated.

Female↗
PubMed1977

Homologous artificial insemination. A reappraisal.

Homologous artificial insemination (AIH), with the use of a split-ejaculate technique, was performed in 62 couples following a complete infertility investigation. Fifty per cent of all men had a sperm count less than 50 million per milliliter and 80 per cent had sperm motility less than 50 per cent. More important, 85 per cent of the initial semen samples had greater than 40 per cent abnormal forms and liquefaction was delayed beyond 20 minutes in 67 per cent of specimen. The pregnancy rate for the 28 women who underwent the prescribed course of six or more inseminations was 46.4 per cent, for the group of 60 who received split-ejaculate AIH, 21.6 per cent; and for the entire group of 62 couples, 24.2 per cent. In the split-ejaculate group 50 per cent of the pregnancies resulted in first-trimester abortions. It is suggested that the pregnancy wastage in these couples might be due to male factors.

Abortion, Spontaneous↗
PubMed1981

Further evaluation of the split ejaculate for artificial insemination.

The role of artificial insemination with husband semen (AIH) in solving fertility problems has been studied by many investigators. Different conclusions have been made due to the variety of indications for AIH. This communication attempts to evaluate the use of the best split ejaculate fraction for AIH in 55 couples in which the only pathological condition was oligozoospermia or oligoasthenozoospermia. Couples in which the women had a known history of anatomical abnormalities were excluded. Although the seminal parameters of spermatozoal density and/or motility in the best split fractions were frequently found to be in the fertile range, the pregnancy rate achieved was only 18% (n = 10). This was comparable to the results obtained by others using whole ejaculates for AIH. The spontaneous pregnancy rate in the present study after termination of treatment was 13% (n = 6). The observations suggest that men with a long-standing history of seminal deficiency produce spermatozoa with a pathology that cannot be microscopically recognized.

Adult↗
PubMed1986

[Genetic aspects of artificial insemination. Choice of donors].

Artificial insemination with donors has genetic repercussions which increase with its impact on demography. Genetic control of semen donors offers a possibility of preventing the main genetic handicaps. The French Federation of Human Semen Study and Preservation Centres (CECOS) is currently organizing such a control system. The reasons for this and the modalities of the system are given in this article.

Female↗
PubMed1979

[The results of two years of artificial insemination (author's transl)].

Artificial insemination donor (AID) is the solution for the sterility of many couples where the man is irreversibly sterile. We present the results of AID using frozen sperm in the two first years of work at the Centre d'Etudes et de Conservation du Sperme (C.E.C.O.S.), which is situated in the Midi-Pyrénées region of France. The results that have been obtained are satisfactory and prove the value of this method, but the means at present at the disposal of the Center do not always meet the demands made on it.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

FDA approved? A critique of the artificial insemination industry in the United States.

Artificial insemination by donor is becoming an increasingly popular means to achieving parenthood. While the majority of couples use artificial insemination to overcome fertility problems, many recipients use artificial insemination to avoid passing a genetic disease to their children. However, case studies reveal the inherent dangers of artificial insemination, namely the lack of proper screening methods to avoid passing genetic diseases to children born by artificial insemination. State-by-state regulation, federal guidelines, and private adjudication have all proven to be inadequate methods of regulating the artificial insemination industry. Ginsberg proposes federal regulation as the only means of achieving a safe artificial insemination industry. The proposed federal regulation would include better genetic screening, a more efficient national sperm donor system, and limited disclosure to recipients of artificial insemination and their children. These measures would help to ensure that couples using artificial insemination get what they expect--healthy sperm, a safe artificial insemination process, and ultimately, a healthy child.

Confidentiality↗
PubMed1980

Artificial insemination with donor semen mixed with semen of the infertile husband.

Mixing an oligoasthenospermic husband's semen with that of a donor prior to insemination (AIM) has been criticized, since such semen may contain antibodies which could interfere with normal sperm function. The efficacy of AIM was reviewed in 227 patients who underwent AI with frozen donor semen. Thirty-four patients requested AIM and thirteen conceived (38.2%). Seven who failed to conceive after AIM changed to donor insemination (AID), and two conceived. One hundred and ninety-three patients had AID alone, and eighty conceived. Thus, 200 patients had AID, with 82 pregnancies (41%). There were no significant differences between the AIM and AID groups with regard to age, prior fertility, and additional infertility factors. The conception rates between groups were not significantly different. Pregnancy rates per cycle of AI and dropout rates were also similar. Postinsemination testing after AIM did not reveal any effect of husband's semen upon donor spermatozoa. This study failed to show a deleterious effect of semen from azoospermic or oligoasthenospermic, infertile men upon normal semen, as used in AIM.

Female↗