The measurement or evaluation and clinical significance of human sperm morphology has always been and still is a controversial aspect of the semen analysis for the determination of a male's fertility potential. In this review the background of the development of the evaluation criteria for sperm morphology will be discussed. Aspects of criticism on the strict criteria definition and use of the criteria for sperm morphology evaluation will be discussed as well as possible reasons for the decline in normal sperm morphology values and how we can compromise for this phenomenon resulting in the very low normal reference value as published in the 2010 WHO manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen. One of the possible solutions may be to give more attention to a limited number of abnormal sperm morphology categories and the inclusion of sperm morphology patterns. It is concluded in this review that if done correctly and with care and with strict application of existing guidelines as outlined in the 2010 WHO manual, sperm morphology measurement still has a very important role to play in the clinical evaluation of male fertility potential.

Vaginal cuff dehiscence (VCD) is a severe adverse event and occurs more frequently after total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) compared with abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. The aim of this study is to compare the incidence of VCD after various suturing methods to close the vaginal vault. We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Patients who underwent TLH between January 2004 and May 2011 were enrolled. We compared the incidence of VCD after closure with transvaginal interrupted sutures versus laparoscopic interrupted sutures versus a laparoscopic single-layer running suture. The latter was either bidirectional barbed or a running vicryl suture with clips placed at each end commonly used in transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Three hundred thirty-one TLHs were included. In 75 (22.7 %), the vaginal vault was closed by transvaginal approach; in 90 (27.2 %), by laparoscopic interrupted sutures; and in 166 (50.2 %), by a laparoscopic running suture. Eight VCDs occurred: one (1.3 %) after transvaginal interrupted closure, three (3.3 %) after laparoscopic interrupted suturing and four (2.4 %) after a laparoscopic running suture was used (p = .707). With regard to the incidence of VCD, based on our data, neither a superiority of single-layer laparoscopic closure of the vaginal cuff with an unknotted running suture nor of the transvaginal and the laparoscopic interrupted suturing techniques could be demonstrated. We hypothesise that besides the suturing technique, other causes, such as the type and amount of coagulation used for colpotomy, may play a role in the increased risk of VCD after TLH.

Purpose This review aims to objectively assess the efficacy and safety of uterine manipulators as reported in scientific literature. Furthermore, it evaluates as to which manipulator best suits which surgical procedure. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, COCHRANE, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, Science Direct and the MAUDE database were searched. Technical information was retrieved from the manufacturers. Results 25 articles covering 10 uterine manipulators were found. Studies regarding implementation and use of manipulators are scarce; only two surveys were found comparing different manipulators. Moreover, clinical evidence proving the efficacy of manipulators with respect to prevention of complications, inherent to laparoscopic surgery, does not exist. Conclusion The use of uterine manipulators is well established and it is clear that uterine manipulators offer the easiest way to handle the uterus during surgery. However, detailed information regarding efficacy and safety is scarce. Clinical evidence substantiating the assumed mechanism of prevention of ureter injuries was not found. Our review did not find the optimal manipulator. Some are more versatile than others and not all instruments are appropriate for all types of surgery. Therefore, gynecologists should choose the manipulator that best suits the type of surgery that is performed.

Much has been published about smoking and alcohol intake influencing male fertility, sperm parameters and reproductive outcome. However, there is no conclusive agreement about the effects of cigarette smoking and alcohol use on these outcomes and thus no generally accepted guidelines. The combined effect of cigarette smoking and alcohol intake, though, has not been rigorously investigated. Because alcohol consumption and smoking are often seen together, this study focuses on the effect of smoking and drinking habits separately and combined on semen parameters, such as volume, sperm count, motility and morphology, and on pregnancy outcome. These suggested toxic effects are studied in a group of subfertile, asthenozoospermic men (<10% motile spermatozoa), compared with a group of 'proven fertile', healthy men. The extreme asthenozoospermic group has especially been chosen because of the suspected effect, that is, oxidative stress, on sperm motility. In our study, we found that cigarette smoking and alcohol intake did not differ between the subfertile and fertile group. In conclusion, cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption do not appear to significantly affect sperm parameters, such as volume, sperm count, motility and morphology or pregnancy outcome in our study population.

No abstract