Evaluation of Male Infertility

  • Sherman Silber


The first and most important test for men still remains the semen analysis (sperm count). However, a poor semen analysis, or a low sperm count, does not rule out natural conception, and a normal sperm count does not necessarily mean that the husband’s sperm can fertilize his wife’s eggs. Men with extremely low sperm counts often have no difficulty impregnating their wives, and yet in a small percentage of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles in which the semen analysis is completely normal, there is no fertilization [1–3]. Very often what seems superficially to be a “male factor” probably is really either a female factor or unknown factor.


  1. 1.
    Devroey P, Vandervorst M, Nagy P et al (1998) Do we treat the male or his gamete? Hum Reprod 13(suppl 1):178–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sokol RZ, Sparkes R (1987) Demonstrated paternity in spite of oligospermia. Fertil Steril 47(2):356–358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith KD, Rodriguez-Rigau LJ, Steinberger E (1977) Relation between indices of semen analysis and pregnancy rate in infertile couples. Fertil Steril 28:1314–1319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    World Health Organization (1992) WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human 882 SILBER semen and sperm cervical mucous interaction, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 44–45Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barratt CLR, Naeeni M, Clements S et al (1995) Clinical value of sperm morphology for invivo fertility: comparison between World Health Organization criteria of 1987 and 1992. Hum Reprod 10:587–593CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    MacLeod J, Gold RZ (1951) The male factor in fertility and infertility. II. Sperm counts in 1000 men of known fertility and in 1000 cases of infertile marriage. J Urol 66:436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rehan N, Sobrero AJ, Fertig JW (1975) The semen of fertile men: statistical analysis of 1300 men. Fertil Steril 26:492–502CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    David G, Jonannet P, Martin-Boyce A et al (1979) Sperm counts in fertile and infertile men. Fertil Steril 31:453–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nelson CM, Bunge RG (1974) Semen analysis: evidence for changing parameters of male fertility potential. Fertil Steril 25:503–507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zukerman Z, Rodriguez-Rigau LJ, Smith KD et al (1977) Frequency distribution of sperm counts in fertile and infertile males. Fertil Steril 28:1310–1303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Silber SJ (1989) The relationship of abnormal semen parameters to male fertility. Opinion Hum Reprod 4:947–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Silber SJ (1989) Pregnancy after vasovasostomy for vasectomy reversal: A study of factors affecting long-term return of fertility in 282 patients followed for 10 years. Hum Reprod 4:318–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jouannet P, Ducot B, Feneux D et al (1988) Male factors and the likelihood of pregnancy in infertile couples. I. Study of sperm characteristics. Int J Androl 11:379–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schoysman R, Gerris J (1983) Twelve-year follow- up: study of pregnancy rates in 1921 couples with idiopathically impaired male fertility. Acta Eur Fertil 14:51–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baker HWG, Burger HG (1986) Male infertility in reproductive medicine. In: Steinberger E, Frajese G, Steinberger A (eds) Reproductive medicine. Raven, New York, pp 187–197Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kovacs GT, Leeton JF, Matthews CD et al (1982) The outcome of artificial donor insemination compared to the husband’s fertility status. Clin Reprod Fertil 1:295–299PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vessey M, Doll R, Peto R et al (1976) A longterm follow-up study of women using different methods of contraception: An interim report. J Biosoc Sci 8:373–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    MacLeod J, Gold RZ (1953) The male factor in fertility and infertility. VI. Semen quality and other factors in relation to ease of conception. Fertil Steril 4:10–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Emperaire JC, Gauzere-Soumireu E, Audebert AJ (1982) Female fertility and donor insemination. Fertil Steril 37:90–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hargreave TB, Elton RA (1983) Is conventional sperm analysis of any use? Br J Urol 55:774–779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Silber SJ, Nagy Z, Devroey P et al (1997) The effect of female age and ovarian reserve on pregnancy rate in male infertility: treatment of azoospermia with sperm retrieval and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 12:2693–2700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nieschlag E, Hertle L, Fischedick A et al (1998) Update on treatment of varicocele: counseling as effective as occlusion of the vena spermatica. Hum Reprod 13:2147–2150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nieschlag E, Hertle L, Fischedick A et al (1995) Treatment of varicocele: counseling as effective as occlusion of the vena spermatica. Hum Reprod 10:347–353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Collins JA, Rowe TC (1989) Age of the female partner is a prognostic factor in prolonged unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril 52:774–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tournaye H, Devroey P, Camus M et al (1992) Comparison of in-vitro fertilization in male and tubal infertility: a 3 year survey. Hum Reprod 7:218–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Talbert LM, Hammond MG, Halme J et al (1987) Semen parameters and fertilization of human oocytes in vitro. Fertil Steril 48:270–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oehninger S, Kruger T (1995) The diagnosis of male infertility by semen quality: clinical significance of sperm morphology assessment. Hum Reprod 10:1037–1038CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grow DR, Oehninger S, Seldman HJ et al (1994) Sperm morphology is diagnosed by strict criteria: probing the impact of teratozoospermia on fertilization rate andpregnancy outcome in a large in vitro fertilization population. Fertil Steril 62:559–567CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kruger TF, Menkveld R, Stander FSH et al (1986) Sperm morphologic features as a prognostic factor in in-vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 46:1118–1123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Comhair FH, de Kretser DM, Farley TM et al (1987) Towards more objectivity in diagnosis and management of male infertility. Int J Androl 7:1–53Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Eliasson R (1971) Standards for investigation of human sperm. Andrologia 3:49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Freund M (1966) Standards for the rating of human sperm morphology: a cooperative study. Int J Fertil 11:97–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kruger TF, Acosta AA, Simmons KF et al (1987) New method of evaluating sperm morphology with predictive value for human in-vitro fertilization. Urology 30:243–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kruger TF, Acosta AA, Simmons KF et al (1988) Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in in-vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 49:112–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Menkveld R, Stander FSH, Kotze TJ et al (1990) The evaluation of morphology characteristics of human spermatozoa according to stricter criteria. Hum Reprod 5:586–592CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Davis RO, Gravance CG (1993) Consistency of sperm morphology classification criteria. J Androl 15:88–91Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Liu DY, Baker HWG (1992) Morphology in spermatozoa bound to the zona pellucida of human oocytes that failed to fertilize in vitro. J Fertil Reprod 94:71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liu DY, Baker HWG (1992) Tests of human sperm function and fertilization in vitro. Fertil Steril 58:465–483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Liu DY, Baker HWG (1992) Sperm nuclear chromatin normality: relationship with sperm morphology, sperm-zona pellucida binding and fertilization rates in vitro. Fertil Steril 58:1178–1184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Liu DY, Du Plessis YP, Nayudu PL et al (1988) The use of in vitro fertilization to evaluate putative tests of human sperm function. Fertil Steril 49:272–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liu DY, Baker HWG (1996) A simple method for assessment of the human acrosome reaction of spermatozoa bound to the zona pellucida: lack of relationship with ionophore A23187-induced acrosome reaction. Hum Reprod 11:551–557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Liu DY, Baker HWG (1994) A new test for the assessment of sperm zona pellucida penetration relationship with results of other sperm tests and fertilization in vitro. Hum Reprod 9:489–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zaneveld LJD, Leyendran RS (1992) Sperm function tests. Infertil Reprod Med Clin North Am 3:353–371Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vawda AI, Gumby J, Younglai EV (1996) Semen parameters as predictors of in vitro fertilization: the importance of strict criteria sperm morphology. Hum Reprod 11:1445–1450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    ESHRE Andrology Special Interest Group (1996) Consensus workshop on advanced diagnostic andrology techniques. Hum Reprod 11:1463–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Duncan WW, Flaherty S, Glew MJ et al (1993) Prediction of in-vitro fertilization rates from semen variables. Fertil Steril 59:1233–1238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sherman Silber
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Infertility Center of St. LouisSt. Luke’s HospitalSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations