Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prognostic value of objective semen parameters in an in vitro fertilization program

  • Clinical Assisted Reproduction
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose: The basic semen parameters seem to have a limited predictive value in male fertility. Could other objective sperm analyses be helpful in the choice of the most adapted assisted procreation technique?

Methods: This study concerns 78 infertile couples with insemination failures. For each semen, 21 objective parameters are analyzed in fresh semen and after sperm selection procedure. The 78 couples are then included in an IVF protocol and classified into two groups: fertile (at least one cleaved embryo is obtained) and infertile.

Results: Using multiple variant discriminant factorial analysis, we have found nine nonconventional parameters which induce us to define two classes of semen. These two classes fit with the classification into fertile and infertile groups in 74.4% of the cases.

Conclusions: So these parameters allow us to predict the chance of obtaining embryos during an IVF trial and to choose for each couple the most appropriate technique: IVF or ICSI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Irvine DS, Mac Leod IC, Templeton AA, Masterton A, Taylor A: A prospective clinical study of the relationship between the computer assisted assessment of human semen quality and the achievement of pregnancy in vivo. Hum Reprod 1994;9:2324–2334

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mac Leod IC, Irvine DS, Masterton A, Taylor A, Templeton AA: Assessment of the conventional criteria of semen quality by computer-assisted image analysis: Evaluation of the Hamilton-Thorn motility analyser in the context of a service andrology laboratory. Hum Reprod 1994;9:310–319

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Liu DY, Baker HWG: Tests of human sperm function and fertilization in vitro. Fertil Steril 1992;58:465–482

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Aitken RJ: Assessment of sperm function for IVF. Hum Reprod 1988;3:89–95

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Davis RO, Katz DF: Operational standards for CASA instruments. J Androl 1993;14:385–394

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Calvo L, Dennison-Lagos L, Banks S, Dorfmann A, Thorsell L, Bustillo M, Schulmann J, Sherins RJ: Acrosome reaction inducibility predicts fertilization success at in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1880–1886

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Calvo L, Dennison-Lagos L, Banks S, Sherins RJ: Characterization and frequency distribution of sperm acrosome reaction among normal and infertile men. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1875–1879

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. WHO (World Health Organisation): Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm Cervical Mucus Interaction, 3rd ed. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  9. Pilikian S, Czyba JC, Guerin JF, Pinatel MC, Adeleine P, Ecochard R: Analyse fonctionnelle des spermes inféconds présentant une asthénozoospermie isolée. 10th Congress of Société d’Andrologie de Langue Française, Oct. 29–31, 1992

  10. Mendoza C, Carreras A, Moos J, Tesarik J: Distinction between true acrosome reaction and degenerative acrosome loss by a one step staining method using Pisum sativum agglutinin. J Reprod Fertil 1989;95:755–763

    Google Scholar 

  11. Veeck L: Typical morphology of the human oocyte and conceptus.In Atlas of the Human Oocyte and Early Conceptus, Vol 2. Baltimore, Williams and Wilkins, 1991, pp. 1–99

    Google Scholar 

  12. Aitken RJ, Baker HWG, Irvine DS: On the nature of semen quality and infertility. Hum Reprod 1995;10:248–249

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Krause W: Computer assisted semen analysis systems: Comparison with routine evaluation and prognostic value in male fertility and assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 1995;10(Suppl 1):60–66

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Paston MJ, Sarkar S, Oates RP, Badawy SZA: Computer aided semen analysis variables as predictors of male fertility potential. Arch Androl 1994;33:93–99

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fillion C, Kraemer M, Martin-Pont B, Gonzales J: Analyse automatisée du mouvement des spermatozoïdes: Reproductibilité et intérêt pour le choix d’une technique d’AMP. 10th Congress of Société d’Andrologie de Langue Française, Oct. 29–31, 1992

  16. Sukcharoen N, Keith J, Irvine S, Aitken RJ: Prediction of the in vitro fertilization potential of human spermatozoa using sperm function test: The effect of delay between testing and IVF. Hum Reprod 1996;11:1030–1034

    Google Scholar 

  17. Aitken RJ, Baker HWG: Seminal leucocytes: Passengers, terrorists or good samaritans? Hum Reprod 1995;10:1736–1739

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Aitken RJ, Buckingham D, Harkiss D: Analysis of the extent to which sperm movement can predict the results of ionophore-enhanced functional assays of the acrosome reaction and spermoocyte fusion. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1867–1874

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Barratt CLR, Tomlinson MJ, Cooke ID: Prognostic significants of computerized motility analysis for in vivo fertility. Fertil Steril 1993;60:520–525

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Montagut J, Regnier-Vigoroux G, Leprêtre S, Artigues MJ, Manzano M, Degoy J: Analyse cinétique des spermatozoïdes: Effets des conditions expérimentales sur la fonction flagellaire et détermination de seuils prédictifs de non-fécondation en fécondation in vitro. Réf Gyn Obs 1995;3:275–284

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mortimer D: The essential partnership between diagnostic andrology and modern assisted reproductive technologies. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1209–1213

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang C, Leung A, Tsoi WL, Leung J, Ng V, Lee KF, Chang SYW: Evaluation of human sperm hyperactivated motility and its relationship with the zona-free hamster oocyte sperm penetration assay. J Androl 1991;12:253–257

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sukcharoen N, Keith J, Irvine DS, Aitken RJ: Definition of the optimal criteria for identifying hyperactivated human spermatozoa at 25Hz using in vitro fertilization as a functional end point. Hum Reprod 1995;10:2928–2937

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang C, Lee GS, Leung A, Surrey ES, Chang SYW: Human sperm hyperactivation and acrosome reaction and their relationships to human in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1993;59:1221–1227

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ginburgh KA, Sacco AG, Ager JW, Moghissi KS: Variation of movement characteristics with washing and capacitation of spermatozoa. II. Multivariate statistical analysis and prediction of sperm penetration ability. Fertil Steril 1990;53:704–708

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hinney B, Wilke G, Michelmann HW: Prognostic value of an automated sperm analysis in IVF or insemination therapy. Andrology 1993;25:195–202

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Mak C, Van Kooij RJ, Eimers JM, Te Velde ER: Human sperm movement assessed with the Hamilton-Thorn motility analyser and in vitro fertilization. Andrology 1994;26:323–329

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Henkel ER, Müller C, Miska W, Gips H, Schill WB: Determination of the acrosome reaction in human spermatozoa is predictive of fertilization in vitro. Hum Reprod 1993;8:2128–2132

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Bielsa MA, Andolz P, Gris JM, Martinez P, Egozcue J: Which semen parameters have a predictive value for pregnancy in infertile couples? Hum Reprod 1994;9:1887–1890

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Parinaud J, Vietiez G, Moutaffian H, Richoilley G, Labal B: Variations in spontaneous and induced acrosome reaction: Correlations with semen parameters and in vitro fertilization results. Hum Reprod 1995;10:2085–2089

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. MacLeod IC, Irvine DS: The predictive value of computer assisted semen analysis in the context of a donor insemination program. Hum Reprod 1995;10:580–586

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Parinaud J, Richoilley G, Milhet P, Moutaffian H, Vieitez G: Validation of a scoring method predicting the in-vitro fertilizing ability of human spermatozoa. Int J Androl 1996;19:18–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department de Procréation Médicalement Assistée, Centre Médico-Chirurgical et Obstétrical, 19 rue Louis Pasteur, BP120, 67303, Schiltigheim Cedex, France

    Christiane Wittemer, Jeanine Ohl & Pierre Dellenbach

  2. Laboratoire de Biologie de la Reproduction et du Développement, Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France

    Stéphanie Warter, Bruno Sudan & Abdel Mache

Authors
  1. Christiane Wittemer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stéphanie Warter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeanine Ohl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bruno Sudan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Abdel Mache
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pierre Dellenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wittemer, C., Warter, S., Ohl, J. et al. Prognostic value of objective semen parameters in an in vitro fertilization program. J Assist Reprod Genet 14, 321–327 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02765835

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02765835

Key words

Search

Navigation