Is sperm evaluation useful in predicting human fertility?

Lewis, Sheena

doi:10.1530/rep-07-0152

Cited by 265 publications

(189 citation statements)

References 90 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

176

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, there is little consensus as to which sperm characteristic is the best predictor of fertility [28]. Consequently, different associations of sperm parameters have been proposed to predict pregnancy and miscarriage [7,22,32,34].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Apoptotic sperm biomarkers and their correlation with conventional sperm parameters and male fertility potential

Zorn

Golob

Ihan

et al. 2012

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To investigate the relationship between sperm apoptotic biomarkers and patient clinical characteristics, conventional sperm parameters and fertility potential. Material and methods Sperm analysis, phospholipid asymmetry, mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP) and DNA denaturation were assessed in 142 males of infertile couples. Seventy-three couples were allocated to the natural conception group, and 55 couples underwent IVF or ICSI. Results DNA denaturation correlated positively with age and negatively with testicular volume (TV). MMP correlated negatively with BMI and FSH and positively with TV. Normal viable sperm correlated positively with TV and negatively with age, BMI and FSH. DNA denaturation was associated with a significantly lower natural pregnancy rate (OR 5.4, p00.011). Conclusion Sperm apoptosis is related to male age, BMI, testicular volume and FSH. Among the apoptotic markers, only DNA denaturation has been found to predict natural pregnancy better than conventional sperm parameters.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Apoptotic sperm biomarkers and their correlation with conventional sperm parameters and male fertility potential

Zorn

Golob

Ihan

et al. 2012

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is an ongoing debate whether sperm concentration, motility or morphology is most important for assessing male fertility or, more generally, whether semen evaluation is of any use at all. 8,20 Routine semen analysis provides useful information concerning sperm production by the testes, sperm motility and viability, the patency of the male genital tract, the secretions of the accessory organs, as well as ejaculation and emission. Hence, the information obtained by this procedure is obviously useful for the initial evaluation of the infertile male.…”

Section: Laboratory Findings Versus Andrological Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

New WHO-reference limits—revolution or storm in a teapot?

Haidl¹

2010

Asian J Androl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since release of the latest WHO manual with the new lower reference values of semen parameters, a lot of discussion has been raised about their usefulness and appropriateness for assessment of male fertility. As with the previous reference values the new limits do neither allow an andrological diagnosis based on nosological criteria nor clear-cut differentiation between fertility and sub-/infertility. Therefore, considering the fact that fertility is a continuum, the new lower reference limits should not be overestimated. Most probably, more sperm function tests, such as determination of DNA integrity, and-in the future-assessment of biomarkers, such as sperm proteomics will be included into andrological work-up, thus resulting in a more personalized approach of infertility management. On the other hand, the detailed instructions for standard and advanced semen analysis provided in the new manual are very much appreciated and should be adopted by each seriously working laboratory. Asian Journal of Andrology (2011) INTRODUCTIONRecently the new WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen (5th edition) has been published 1 and a Special Issue of the Asian Journal of Andrology to mark that occasion has highlighted in a series of papers the controversies arising from that new edition. This new version of the manual provides substantial changes and improvements compared with the previous versions and contains more detailed information and instruction, thus facilitating the work in the andrological laboratory. Along with a large series of instructive photographs, including those demonstrating normal spermatozoa according to strict criteria and respective pathomorphology, it contains very detailed and clear explanations of all the basic techniques. Moreover, new chapters on sperm preparation for assisted reproduction techniques and cryopreservation have been included. The text also incorporates a series of detailed standardized protocols for more advanced assessments of additional elements of semen analysis, such as the detection of leukocytes, the identification of precursor germ cells and the determination of antisperm antibodies. Most importantly, there is a completely revised chapter on quality control. 2 The most striking changes in this new edition of the WHO manual, however, concern the reference values for semen quality. Whereas the previous reference values were based, more or less, on expert opinion, the new ones were acquired by analysing semen samples from 1800 recent fathers (time to pregnancy of f12 months) living in eight countries on three continents. From these data, one-sided lower reference limits were generated from the fifth percentile of the data distribution. 3 The development of evidence-based reference ranges for semen analysis resolves one of the major concerns of previous editions. These new reference values reveal some drastic differences from the previous ones; for example, progressive motility is considered

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, normal semen results do not guarantee fecundity, so it is important to acknowledge the limitations of semen analysis results in predicting the health and functional capacity of the male reproductive organs and cells [2]. Furthermore, semen analysis does not provide information regarding molecular sperm characteristics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Obstetric and perinatal outcome of babies born from sperm selected by MACS from a randomized controlled trial

Romany

Garrido

Cobo

et al. 2016

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study is to assess outcomes after magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) technology on obstetric and perinatal outcomes compared with those achieved after swim up from randomized controlled trial. Methods This is a two-arm, unicentric, prospective, randomized, and triple-blinded trial and has a total of 237 infertile couples, between October 2010 and January 2013. A total of 65 and 66 newborns from MACS and control group, respectively, were described. Results MACS had no clinically relevant adverse effects on obstetric and perinatal outcomes. No differences were found for obstetric problems including premature rupture of membranes 6.1% (CI95% 0-12.8) vs. 5.9% (CI95% 0-12.4), 1st trimester bleeding 28.6% (CI95% 15.9-41.2) vs. 23.5% (CI95% 11.9-35.1), invasive procedures as amniocentesis 2.0% (CI95% 0-5.9) vs. 3.9% (CI95% 0-9.2), diabetes 14.3% (CI95% 4.5-24.1) vs. 9.8% (CI95% 1.6-17.9), anemia 6.1% (CI95% 0-12.8) vs. 5.9%(CI95% 0-12.4), 2nd and 3rd trimesters 10.2% (CI95% 1.7-18.7) vs. 5.9% (CI95% 0-12.4), urinary tract infection 8.2% (CI95% 0.5-15.9) vs. 3.9% (CI95% 0-9.2), pregnancy-induced hypertension 6.1% (CI95% 0-12.8) vs. 15.7% (CI95% 5.7-25.7), birth weight (g) 2684.10 (CI95% 2499.48-2868.72) vs. 2676.12 (CI95% 2499.02-2852.21), neonatal height (cm) 48.3 (CI95% 47.1-49.4) vs. 46.5 (CI95% 44.6-48.4), and gestational cholestasis 0%(CI95% 0-0) vs. 3.9% (CI95% 0-9.2), respectively, in MACS group compared with control group. Conclusions Our data suggest that MACS technology does not increase or decrease Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes in children conceived when this technology was performed, being the largest randomized control trial with live birth reported results with MACS.

show abstract

Is sperm evaluation useful in predicting human fertility?

Cited by 265 publications

References 90 publications

Apoptotic sperm biomarkers and their correlation with conventional sperm parameters and male fertility potential

Apoptotic sperm biomarkers and their correlation with conventional sperm parameters and male fertility potential

New WHO-reference limits—revolution or storm in a teapot?

Obstetric and perinatal outcome of babies born from sperm selected by MACS from a randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About