Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T03:43:55.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - The Basic Semen Analysis: Interpretation and Clinical Application

from PART II - INFERTILITY EVALUATION AND TREATMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

Botros R. M. B. Rizk
Affiliation:
University of South Alabama
Juan A. Garcia-Velasco
Affiliation:
Rey Juan Carlos University School of Medicine,
Hassan N. Sallam
Affiliation:
University of Alexandria School of Medicine
Antonis Makrigiannakis
Affiliation:
University of Crete
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

It is estimated that male subfertility is present in up to 40–50 percent of infertile couples, alone or in combination with female factors (1).

The correct approach for male infertility evaluation should include a rational program composed of the careful evaluation of the patient's history, a complete physical examination, laboratory tests of basic/extended semen analysis, and an urological, endocrinological, and genetic workup, as appropriate (2).

Several semen parameters are used to discriminate the fertile male from the subfertile male. The most widely used parameters are sperm concentration, motility, progressive motility, and sperm morphology. All of these parameters are important and must not be used alone to make clinical decisions or seen in isolation. Sperm morphology is, however, the single sperm indicator most widely debated in the literature. A large number of classification systems have been used to describe which cellular features constitute a morphologically normal/abnormal spermatozoon. The most widely accepted classification systems for sperm morphology are the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria of 1987 and 1992 (3, 4) and the Tygerberg strict criteria, now also used by the WHO since 1999 (5–5).

Although there is a positive correlation between normal semen parameters and male fertility potential, the threshold values for fertility/subfertility according to WHO criteria 1987 and 1992 (3, 4) are of little clinical value in discriminating between the fertile and subfertile male (9–13).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

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

Irvine, DS. Declining sperm quality: a review of facts and hypotheses. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1997;11:655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arslan, M, Oehninger, S, Kruger, TF. Clinical management of male infertility. In: Male Infertility: Diagnosis and Treatment; Oehninger, , Krugers, editors, Informa Health Care, London 2006, 305–18.Google Scholar
World Health Organization, . WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Semen-Cervical Mucus Interaction, edn. 2. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
World Health Organization, . WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction, edn. 3. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Kruger, TF, Acosta, AA, Simmons, KF, Swanson, RJ et al. Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1988;49:112–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruger, TF, Menkveld, R, Stander, FS, Lombard, CJ et al. Sperm morphologic features as a prognostic factor in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1986;46:1118–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menkveld, R, Stander, FSH, Kotze, TJ et al. The evaluation of morphological characteristics of human spermatozoa according to stricter criteria. Hum Reprod 1990;5:586–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization, . WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction, edn 4. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Barratt, CL, Naceeni, M, Clements, S et al. Clinical value of sperm morphology for in-vivo fertility: comparison between World Health Organization criteria of 1987 and 1992. Hum Reprod 1995;10:587–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blonde, JP, Ernst, E, Jensen, TK et al. Relation between semen quality and fertility: a population-based study of 430 first- pregnancy planners. Lancet 1998;352:1172–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chia, SE, Tay, SK, Lim, ST. What constitutes a normal seminal analysis? Semen parameters of 243 fertile men. Hum Reprod 1998;13:3394–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coetzee, K, Kruger, TF, Lombard, CJ. Predictive value of normal sperm morphology: a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update 1998;4:73–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ayala, C, Steinberger, E, Smith, DP. The influence of semen analysis parameters on the fertility potential of infertile couples. J Androl 1996;17:718–25.Google ScholarPubMed
Waart, J, Kruger, TF, Lombard, CJ et al. Predictive value of normal sperm morphology in intrauterine insemination (IUI): a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update 2001;7:495–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siebert, TI, Merwe, FH, Kruger, TF et al. How do we define male subfertility and what is the prevalence in the general population. In Male Infertility: Diagnosis and Treatment. Informa Health Care, London, 2006; 269–76.Google Scholar
Merwe, FH, Kruger, TF, Oehninger, S. The use of semen parameters to identify the subfertile male in the general population. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2005;59:86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montanaro Gauci, M, Kruger, TF, Coetzee, K et al. Stepwise regression analysis to study male and female factors impacting on pregnancy rate in an intrauterine insemination programme. Andrologia 2001;33:135–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ombelet, W, Vandeput, H, Van de Putte G et al. Intrauterine insemination after ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate: predictive potential of inseminating motile count and sperm morphology. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1458–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linheim, S, Barad, D, Zinger, M et al. Abnormal sperm morphology is highly predictive of pregnancy outcome during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination. J Assist Reprod Genet 1996;13:569–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günalp, S, Onculoglu, C, Gürgan, T et al. A study of semen parameters with emphasis on sperm morphology in a fertile population: an attempt to develop clinical thresholds. Hum Reprod 2001;16:110–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menkveld, R, Wong, WY, Lombard, CJ et al. Semen parameters, including WHO and strict criteria morphology, in a fertile and infertile population: an effort towards standardization of in vivo thresholds. Hum Reprod 2001;16:1165–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ombelet, W, Bosmans, E, Janssen, M et al. Semen parameters in a fertile versus sub-fertile population: a need for change in the interpretation of semen testing. Hum Reprod 1997;12:987–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzick, DS, Overstreet, JW, Factor-Litvak, P et al. Sperm morphology, motility, and concentration in fertile and infertile men. N Engl J Med 2001;345:1388–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oehninger, S et al. Sperm function assays and their predictive value for fertilization outcome in IVF therapy: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2000;6:160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duran, HE et al. Intrauterine insemination: a systematic review on determinants of success, Hum Reprod Update 2002b;8:373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bastiaan, HS, Windt, ML, Menkveld, R, Kruger, TF, Oehninger, S, Franken, DR. Relationship between zona pellucida-induced acrosome reaction, sperm morphology, sperm-zona pellucida binding, and in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(1):49–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katsuki, T et al. Prediction of outcomes of assisted reproduction treatment using the calcium ionophore-induced acrosome reaction. Hum Reprod 2005;20:469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duran, EH et al. Sperm DNA quality predicts intrauterine insemination outcome: a prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod 2002a;17:3122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greco, E et al. Efficient treatment of infertility due to sperm DNA damage by ICSI with testicular spermatozoa. Hum Reprod 2005;20:226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×