In search for the general population’s semen profile: the study of sperm parameters in partners of women with chronic anovulation

Background: Human fertility is linked to sperm quality and therefore the establishment of reference values for normality is mandatory. Aims: The first aim was to establish a reference profile of men in the general population by examining the semen of partners of women with chronic anovulation. The second aim was to determine the prevalence of sperm abnormalities in this patient group. Methods: Sperm samples of 304 partners of patients with chronic anovulation were analysed prospectively. Semen samples were examined according to WHO guidelines, for sperm morphology Tygerberg strict criteria were used. We compared the results of this study with the cut-off values for normality we obtained in a previous study performed in our centre. Results: The mean value was 3.1 ml for volume, 64.7 mill / ml for concentration, 51.9% for progressive motility (grade a + b motility) and 7.4% for sperm morphology. Single parameter and double parameter abnormalities were observed in 42.7% and 8.2% of cases respectively. A normal sperm sample for all three parameters was noted in 46% of cases. Oligo-Astheno-Teratozoospermia was present in 3.0% of cases while azoospermia was found in two patients (0.7%). Conclusion: We believe that the study of sperm parameters in partners of patients with chronic anovulation can be used to study the prevalence of sperm abnormalities in the general population. Our data show that semen abnormalities are not uncommon in partners of women with chronic anovulation, highlighting the importance of a semen examination in every infertility work-up, even in case of obvious female pathology.

[1]  F. Comhaire,et al.  Evaluation of the hypo‐osmotic swelling test in relation with advanced methods of semen analysis , 2009, Andrologia.

[2]  S. Wen,et al.  Reference Values of Semen Parameters for Healthy Chinese Men , 2008, Urologia Internationalis.

[3]  K. Barnhart,et al.  Do sperm DNA integrity tests predict pregnancy with in vitro fertilization? , 2008, Fertility and sterility.

[4]  S. Lewis,et al.  Focus on Determinants of Male Fertility Is sperm evaluation useful in predicting human fertility? , 2007 .

[5]  T. Lim,et al.  Correlation between semen parameters and the Hamster Egg Penetration Test (HEPT) among fertile and subfertile men in Singapore. , 2006, Journal of andrology.

[6]  A. Pacey,et al.  Is quality assurance in semen analysis still really necessary? A view from the andrology laboratory. , 2006, Human reproduction.

[7]  A. Agarwal,et al.  Significance of sperm characteristics in the evaluation of male infertility. , 2006, Fertility and sterility.

[8]  N. Skakkebaek,et al.  Semen quality of 324 fertile Japanese men. , 2006, Human reproduction.

[9]  Thore Egeland,et al.  Semen parameters in Norwegian fertile men. , 2006, Journal of andrology.

[10]  A. Jequier.  Is quality assurance in semen analysis still really necessary? A clinician's viewpoint. , 2005, Human reproduction.

[11]  C. Lombard,et al.  The Use of Semen Parameters to Identify the Subfertile Male in the General Population , 2005, Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation.

[12]  J. Castilla,et al.  Biological variation of seminal parameters in healthy subjects. , 2003, Human reproduction.

[13]  J. Auger,et al.  Inter-individual variability in the morphological assessment of human sperm: effect of the level of experience and the use of standard methods. , 2003, Human reproduction.

[14]  Fan Liu,et al.  Geographic differences in semen quality of fertile U.S. males. , 2002, Environmental health perspectives.

[15]  E. Nieschlag,et al.  Semen analysis and external quality control schemes for semen analysis need global standardization. , 2002, International journal of andrology.

[16]  Ming-Huei Lin,et al.  Sperm morphology analysis using strict criteria as a prognostic factor in intrauterine insemination. , 2002, International journal of andrology.

[17]  S. Esteves.  Lack of standardization in performance of the semen analysis among laboratories in the United States. , 2002, International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology.

[18]  E. Cicinelli,et al.  Usefulness of the hypo-osmotic swelling test in predicting pregnancy rate and outcome in couples undergoing intrauterine insemination. , 2002, Journal of andrology.

[19]  N. Keiding,et al.  Time to pregnancy and semen parameters: a cross-sectional study among fertile couples from four European cities. , 2002, Human reproduction.

[20]  J W Overstreet,et al.  Sperm morphology, motility, and concentration in fertile and infertile men. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  B. A. Keel,et al.  Lack of standardization in performance of the semen analysis among laboratories in the United States. , 2001, Fertility and sterility.

[22]  A. Lenzi,et al.  Antisperm immunity in natural and assisted reproduction. , 2001, Human reproduction update.

[23]  C. Lombard,et al.  Predictive value of normal sperm morphology in intrauterine insemination (IUI): a structured literature review. , 2001, Human reproduction update.

[24]  A. Wetzels,et al.  Semen parameters, including WHO and strict criteria morphology, in a fertile and subfertile population: an effort towards standardization of in-vivo thresholds. , 2001, Human reproduction.

[25]  Niels Keiding,et al.  Regional differences in semen quality in Europe , 2001, Human reproduction.

[26]  E. Bagiella,et al.  Declining sperm counts in the United States? A critical review. , 1999, The Journal of urology.

[27]  S. Chia,et al.  What constitutes a normal seminal analysis? Semen parameters of 243 fertile men. , 1998, Human reproduction.

[28]  T. K. Jensen,et al.  Relation between semen quality and fertility: a population-based study of 430 first-pregnancy planners , 1998, The Lancet.

[29]  W. Gyselaers,et al.  Semen parameters in a fertile versus subfertile population: a need for change in the interpretation of semen testing. , 1998, Human reproduction.

[30]  E. Bosmans,et al.  Sperm morphology assessment: diagnostic potential and comparative analysis of strict or WHO criteria in a fertile and a subfertile population. , 1998, International journal of andrology.

[31]  E. Nieschlag,et al.  Frequently subnormal semen profiles of normal volunteers recruited over 17 years. , 1997, International journal of andrology.

[32]  E. Bosmans,et al.  Results of a questionnaire on sperm morphology assessment. , 1997, Human reproduction.

[33]  J. Auger,et al.  Evidence for regional differences of semen quality among fertile French men. Fédération Francaise des Centres d'Etude et de Conservation des Oeufs et du Sperme humains. , 1997, Human reproduction.

[34]  H. Fisch,et al.  Worldwide variations in sperm counts. , 1996, Urology.

[35]  A. Giri,et al.  Role of hypo-osmotic sperm swelling test in assisted reproduction. , 1996, Journal of the Indian Medical Association.

[36]  S. Oei,et al.  Consistency and variation in fertility investigations in Europe. , 1995, Human reproduction.

[37]  P. Matson.  Andrology: External quality assessment for semen analysis and sperm antibody detection: results of a pilot scheme , 1995 .

[38]  G. Doncel,et al.  Fertilization efficiency of morphologically abnormal spermatozoa in assisted reproduction is further impaired by antisperm antibodies on the male partner's sperm. , 1994, Fertility and sterility.

[39]  E. Bosmans,et al.  Teratozoospermia and in-vitro fertilization: a randomized prospective study. , 1994, Human reproduction.

[40]  E. Nieschlag,et al.  Internal quality control of semen analysis. , 1992, Fertility and sterility.

[41]  H. Baker,et al.  Variation of semen quality in normal men. , 1991, International journal of andrology.

[42]  R. Menkveld,et al.  The evaluation of morphological characteristics of human spermatozoa according to stricter criteria. , 1990, Human reproduction.

[43]  L. Veeck,et al.  Failure of fertilization in in vitro fertilization: The “Occult” male factor , 1988, Journal of in Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer.

[44]  E. Lamb,et al.  Do the results of semen analysis predict future fertility? A survival analysis study. , 1988, Fertility and sterility.

[45]  C. Lombard,et al.  Sperm morphologic features as a prognostic factor in in vitro fertilization. , 1986, Fertility and sterility.

[46]  J Scott-Wilson,et al.  Book Review: Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Semen-Cervical Mucus Interaction , 1982, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[47]  A. Jequier.  The importance of diagnosis in the clinical management of infertility in the male. , 2006, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[48]  W. Ombelet,et al.  How do we define male subfertility and what is the prevalence in the general population , 2006 .

[49]  J. Check.  The infertile male--diagnosis. , 2006, Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology.

[50]  Check Jh.  The infertile male--diagnosis. , 2006 .

[51]  C. Lombard,et al.  A study of semen parameters with emphasis on sperm morphology in a fertile population: an attempt to develop clinical thresholds. , 2001, Human reproduction.

[52]  J. Auger.  Evidence for regional differences of semen quality among fertile French men Fédération Française des CECOS , 1997 .

[53]  W. Ombelet,et al.  Sperm morphology assessment: historical review in relation to fertility. , 1995, Human reproduction update.

[54]  F. Comhaire,et al.  Comparison of different methods for the investigation of antisperm antibodies on spermatozoa, in seminal plasma and in serum. , 1995, Human reproduction.

[55]  J. Adeghe.  Male subfertility due to sperm antibodies: a clinical overview. , 1993, Obstetrical & gynecological survey.

[56]  I. Cooke,et al.  The poor prognostic value of low to moderate levels of sperm surface-bound antibodies. , 1992, Human reproduction.

[57]  内田 昭弘.  Usefulness of hypoosmotic swelling test for evaluation of human sperm fertilization , 1992 .

[58]  S. Oehninger,et al.  Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in in vitro fertilization. , 1988, Fertility and sterility.

[59]  R. Williamson,et al.  Antibody binding to greater than 50% of sperm at the tail tip does not impair male fertility. , 1988, Fertility and sterility.

[60]  L. Zaneveld,et al.  Development of an assay to assess the functional integrity of the human sperm membrane and its relationship to other semen characteristics. , 1984, Journal of reproduction and fertility.

[61]  J. Kremer,et al.  A simple method of screening for antisperm antibodies in the human male. Detection of spermatozoal surface IgG with the direct mixed antiglobulin reaction carried out on untreated fresh human semen. , 1978, International journal of fertility.