Aim: To compare the recovery rate of morphologically normal and chromatin condensed spermatozoa from native se-men samples using the SpermPrep~(TM) filtration columns and Percoll gradient centrifugation and to determine the influenceof the two processing techniques on fertilization and pregnancy rates in an IVF-ET program. Methods: Sixteen se-men samples obtained from patient’s husband were included in this study. Each was divided into two aliquots. The firstaliquot was processed with SpermPrep~(TM) filtration columns and the second, Percoll gradient centrifugation. Smears weremade before and after semen processing with both methods for the evaluation of chromatin condensation (chromomycineCMA3) as well as morphology (strict criteria) of spermatozoa. One hundred and seventy oocytes were retrieved fromthe patients and the oocytes from each patient were subdivided into two sets : one set was inseminated using spermatozoaprocessed with SpermPrep~(TM) and the other inseminated after semen processing with Pe Aim: To compare the recovery rate of morphologically normal and chromatin condensed spermatozoa from native se-men samples using the SpermPrep ™ filtration columns and Percoll gradient centrifugation and determine the influence of the two processing techniques on fertilization and pregnancy rates in an IVF -ET program. Methods: Sixteen se-men samples obtained from patient’s husband were included in this study. Each was divided into two aliquots. The first aliquot was processed with SpermPrep ™ filtration columns and the second, Percoll gradient centrifugation. Smears weremade before and after semen processing with both methods for the evaluation of chromatin condensation (chromomycineCMA3) as well as morphology (strict criteria) of spermatozoa. One hundred and seventy oocytes were retrieved from the patients and the oocytes from each patient were subdivided into two sets: one set was inseminated using spermatozoaprocessed with SpermPrep ™ (TM) and the other inseminated after semen processing with Pe