Standard Semen Analysis: Morphology

doi:10.1017/9781108878715.008

Chapter 5 - Standard Semen Analysis: Morphology

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 April 2021

Edited by

Ralf Henkel and

Ashok Agarwal: Affiliation:
The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH
Ralf Henkel: Affiliation:
University of the Western Cape, South Africa
Ahmad Majzoub: Affiliation:
Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The evaluation of sperm morphology as a standard procedure to be included in routine semen analysis is under persistent pressure due to several factors relating inter alia to the changing definition and description for a morphological normal spermatozoon. In addition, the description of different methods for the morphology evaluation process [1], the different ways in which the results are reported by different laboratories [2], and the continued lowering of the cut-off, or lower reference value, in the consecutive World Health Organization (WHO) semen analysis manuals published between 1980 and 2010 changed. An additional factor in the demise of sperm morphology evaluation in the routine Andrology laboratory is the continuing trend of non-adherence in many laboratories to the guideline given in the WHO manual(s) [3].

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Manual of Sperm Function Testing in Human Assisted Reproduction , pp. 39 - 46

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108878715.008 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

World Health Organization. (2010) WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen, 5th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar

Van den Hoven, L, Hendricks, JC, Verbeet, JG, Westphal, JR, Wetzels, AM. Status of sperm morphology assessment: an evaluation of methodology and clinical value. Fertil Steril 2015; 103: 53–8.Google Scholar

Gatimel, N, Mansoux, L, Moreau, J, Parinaud, J, Léandri, RD. Continued existence of significant disparities in the technical practice of sperm morphology assessment and the clinical implications: results of a French questionnaire. Fertil Steril 2017; 107: 365–72.Google Scholar

Menkveld, R, Stander, FSH, Kotze, TJW, Kruger, TF, van Zyl, JA. The evaluation of morphological characteristics of human spermatozoa according to stricter criteria. Hum Reprod 1990; 5: 586–92.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Comhaire, F, Schoonjans, F, Vermeulen, L, Clercq N, De. Methodological aspects of sperm morphology evaluation: comparison between strict and liberal criteria. Fertil Steril 1994; 62: 857–61.Google Scholar

Sigman, M. Male reproduction – Semen analysis. Fertil Steril 2018; 110: 278–81.Google Scholar

MacLeod, J, Gold, RZ. The male factor in fertility and infertility. IV. Sperm morphology in fertile and infertile marriage. Fertil Steril 1952; 2: 394–414.Google Scholar

Eliasson, R. Standards for investigation of human semen. Andrologie 1971; 3: 49–64.Google Scholar

Menkveld, R. (1987) An investigation of environmental influences on spermatogenesis and semen parameters. Ph.D. dissertation (in Afrikaans). Faculty of Medicine, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.Google Scholar

Maree, L, Du Plessis, SS, Menkveld, R, Van der Horst, G. Morphometric dimensions of the human sperm head depends on the staining method used. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 1369–82.Google Scholar

Menkveld, R. Sperm morphology assessment using strict (Tygerberg) criteria. Methods Mol Biol 2013; 927: 39–50.Google Scholar

Menkveld, R. Clinical significance of the low normal sperm morphology value as proposed in the 5th WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. Asian J Androl 2010; 12: 47–58.Google Scholar

Menkveld, R, Holleboom, CAG, Rhemrev, JPT. Measurement and significance of sperm morphology. Asian J Androl 2011; 13: 59–68.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Cooper, TG, Noonan, E, von Eckardstein, S, Auger, J, Baker, HWG, Behre, HM, Haugen, TB, Kruger, T, Wang, C, Mbizvo, MT, Vogelsong, KM. World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Hum Reprod Update 2010; 16: 231–45.Google Scholar

Rothmann, SA, Bort, A-M. Sperm morphology. Encyclopedia of Reproduction 2018; 5: 85–95.Google Scholar

Menkveld, R. (2007) The basic semen analysis.In Oehninger, S and Kruger, TF, eds., Male Infertility. Diagnosis and Treatment. Oxford: Informa Healthcare, pp. 141–70.Google Scholar

Björndahl, L, Mortimer, D, Barratt, CLR, Castilla, JA, Menkveld, R, Kvist, U, Alvarez, JG, Haugen, TB. (2010) A Practical Guide to Basic Laboratory Andrology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Zyl, JA, Menkveld, R. Oligozoospermia: recent progress and outcome of 73 pregnancies in oligozoospermic couples. Andrologia 2006; 38: 87–9.Google Scholar

Alhathal, N, San-Gabriel, M, Zini, A. Beneficial effects of microsurgical varicocelectomy on sperm maturation, DNA fragmentation, and nuclear sulfhydryl groups: a prospective trail. Andrology 2016; 4: 1204–8.Google Scholar

Henkel, R, Hoogendijk, CF, Bouic, PJD, Kruger, TF. Differential relationship between P- and G-pattern, normal sperm morphology and DNA fragmentation (Abstract). J Reproduktionsmed Endokrinol 2010; 7: 290–1.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.