Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 31, Issue 9, pp 1147–1153 | Cite as

Predictive value of postwashed total progressively motile sperm count using CASA estimates in 6871 non-donor intrauterine insemination cycles

  • Orkun TanEmail author
  • Thoa Ha
  • Bruce R. Carr
  • Paul Nakonezny
  • Kathleen M. Doody
  • Kevin J. Doody
Assisted Reproduction Technologies



To determine whether postwashed total progressively motile sperm count (TPMSC) obtained by CASA estimates could predict positive pregnancy test result in non-donor IUI cycles.


Six thousand eight hundred and seventy one (6,871) IUI cycles with non-donor semen were retrospectively analyzed. Patient, cycle characteristics and prewashed and postwashed semen parameters were included in analysis. The main outcome measure was the positive pregnancy test result.


The pregnancy rate per cycle (PR/cycle) when postwashed TPMSC is between 0–0.5 million, 0.51–1 million, 1.01–5 million, 5.01–10 million and greater than 10 million were 8.1 % (42/520), 14.4 % (41/285), 16.1 % (237/1,469), 18.4 % (193/1,046) and 18.8 % (668/3,551) respectively. The predicted odd of positive pregnancy result is statistically significantly higher when TPMSC is >0.51 million compared to the TPMSC of <0.51 million (OR = 1.68, 95 % CI: 1.04–2.71). The predicted odd of positive pregnancy result is greatest when TPMSC is at least 5 million (OR = 2, 95 % CI: 1.38 to 2.9).


TPMSC is an independent predictor of pregnancy test result and TPMSC of half million or greater is adequate to achieve statistically similar pregnancy test results after non-donor IUI cycles.


Intrauterine insemination Computer assisted sperm analysis Pregnancy Semen analysis 


  1. 1.
    Zhao Y et al. Impact of semen characteristics on the success of intrauterine insemination. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004;21(5):143–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Le Lannou D. Intrauterine insemination, indications, and results. Contracept Fertil Sex. 1994;22(6):361–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duran HE et al. Intrauterine insemination: a systematic review on determinants of success. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8(4):373–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Branigan EF, Estes MA, Muller CH. Advanced semen analysis: a simple screening test to predict intrauterine insemination success. Fertil Steril. 1999;71(3):547–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Akanji Tijani H, Bhattacharya S. The role of intrauterine insemination in male infertility. Hum Fertil Camb. 2010;13(4):226–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Voorhis BJ et al. Effect of the total motile sperm count on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2001;75(4):661–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Strandell A et al. Fallopian tube sperm perfusion: the impact of sperm count and morphology on pregnancy rates. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82(11):1023–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hughes EG. The effectiveness of ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination in the treatment of persistent infertility: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(9):1865–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freour T et al. Computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) parameters and their evolution during preparation as predictors of pregnancy in intrauterine insemination with frozen-thawed donor semen cycles. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;149(2):186–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jorgensen N et al. Semen analysis performed by different laboratory teams: an intervariation study. Int J Androl. 1997;20(4):201–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brazil C et al. Standardized methods for semen evaluation in a multicenter research study. J Androl. 2004;25(4):635–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Weert JM et al. Performance of the postwash total motile sperm count as a predictor of pregnancy at the time of intrauterine insemination: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(3):612–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller DC et al. Processed total motile sperm count correlates with pregnancy outcome after intrauterine insemination. Urology. 2002;60(3):497–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horvath PM et al. The relationship of sperm parameters to cycle fecundity in superovulated women undergoing intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 1989;52(2):288–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wainer R et al. Prognostic sperm factors in intra-uterine insemination with partner’s sperm. Contracept Fertil Sex. 1996;24(12):897–903.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berg U, Brucker C, Berg FD. Effect of motile sperm count after swim-up on outcome of intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 1997;67(4):747–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dodson WC et al. A randomized comparison of the methods of sperm preparation for intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 1998;70(3):574–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khalil MR et al. Homologous intrauterine insemination. an evaluation of prognostic factors based on a review of 2473 cycles. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80(1):74–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dodson WC, Haney AF. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination for treatment of infertility. Fertil Steril. 1991;55(3):457–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nulsen JC et al. A randomized and longitudinal study of human menopausal gonadotropin with intrauterine insemination in the treatment of infertility. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;82(5):780–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brasch JG et al. The relationship between total motile sperm count and the success of intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 1994;62(1):150–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Campana A et al. Intrauterine insemination: evaluation of the results according to the woman’s age, sperm quality, total sperm count per insemination and life table analysis. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(4):732–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huang HY et al. The impact of the total motile sperm count on the success of intrauterine insemination with husband’s spermatozoa. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1996;13(1):56–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kleppe, M., M.H. van Hooff, and J.P. Rhemrev, Effect of total motile sperm count in intra-uterine insemination on ongoing pregnancy rate. Andrologia, 2014Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dinelli L et al. Prognosis factors of pregnancy after intrauterine insemination with the husband’s sperm: conclusions of an analysis of 2,019 cycles. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(4):994–1000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bollendorf A, Check JH, Lurie D. Evaluation of the effect of the absence of sperm with rapid and linear progressive motility on subsequent pregnancy rates following intrauterine insemination or in vitro fertilization. J Androl. 1996;17(5):550–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ok EK et al. The effect of post-wash total progressive motile sperm count and semen volume on pregnancy outcomes in intrauterine insemination cycles: a retrospective study. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2013;14(3):142–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rhemrev JP et al. The postwash total progressively motile sperm cell count is a reliable predictor of total fertilization failure during in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(5):884–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nikbakht R, Saharkhiz N. The influence of sperm morphology, total motile sperm count of semen and the number of motile sperm inseminated in sperm samples on the success of intrauterine insemination. Int J Fertil Steril. 2011;5(3):168–73.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wainer R et al. Influence of the number of motile spermatozoa inseminated and of their morphology on the success of intrauterine insemination. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(9):2060–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sun Y et al. Does sperm morphology affect the outcome of intrauterine insemination in patients with normal sperm concentration and motility? Andrologia. 2012;44(5):299–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nicopoullos JD et al. A decade of sperm washing: clinical correlates of successful insemination outcome. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(8):1869–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Farhi J, Orvieto R. Cumulative clinical pregnancy rates after COH and IUI in subfertile couples. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2010;26(7):500–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Streda R et al. Ovulation induction increases pregnancy rate during intrauterine insemination compared with natural cycles. Ceska Gynekol. 2007;72(6):397–402.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Berker B et al. Recombinant FSH versus clomiphene citrate for ovarian stimulation in couples with unexplained infertility and male subfertility undergoing intrauterine insemination: a randomized trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;284(6):1561–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Costello MF. Systematic review of the treatment of ovulatory infertility with clomiphene citrate and intrauterine insemination. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;44(2):93–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Badawy A, Elnashar A, Eltotongy M. Effect of sperm morphology and number on success of intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(3):777–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Orkun Tan
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Thoa Ha
    • 1
  • Bruce R. Carr
    • 1
  • Paul Nakonezny
    • 3
  • Kathleen M. Doody
    • 4
  • Kevin J. Doody
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  2. 2.ReproMed Fertility CenterDallasUSA
  3. 3.Department of Clinical Sciences, Division of BiostatisticsUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  4. 4.Center for Assisted ReproductionBedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations