Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The evaluation of semen and its use in ART

  • Chapter
Physiologie, pathologie et thérapie de la reproduction chez l’humain

  • 887 Accesses

Résumé

It is estimated that in 40–50% of infertile couples, the male is infertile, which, in the general population, equals about 5–10% of all married men. However, infertility should not be viewed as solely male- or female-related, but as a question of varying degrees of fertility potential in both partners. Marginal male fertility can often be offset by excellent female fertility and vice versa.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ombelet W, Bosmans E, Janssen M, et al. (1997) Semen parameters in a fertile versus sub-fertile population: a need for change in the interpretation of semen testing. Hum Reprod 12:987–993

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Günalp S, Onculoglu C, Gürgan T, et al. (2001) A study of semen parameters with emphasis on sperm morphology in a fertile population: an attempt to develop clinical thresholds. Hum Reprod 16:110–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Menkveld R, Wong WY, Lombard CJ, et al. (2001) Semen parameters, including WHO and strict criteria morphology, in a fertile and infertile population: an effort towards standardization of in vivo thresholds. Hum Reprod 16:1165–1171

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Guzick DS, Overstreet JW, Factor-Litvak P, et al. (2001) Sperm morphology, motility, and concentration in fertile and infertile men. N Engl J Med 345:1388–1393

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Coetzee K, Kruger TF, Lombard CJ (1998) Predictive value of normal sperm morphology: a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update 4:73–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Van Waart J, Kruger TF, Lombard CJ, et al. (2001) Predictive value of normal sperm morphology in intrauterine insemination (IUI): a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update 7:495–500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Montanaro Gauci M, Kruger TF, Coetzee K, et al. (2001) Stepwise regression analysis to study male and female factors impacting on pregnancy rate in an intrauterine insemination programme. Andrologia 33:135–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Barratt CL, Naceeni M, Clements S, et al. (1995) Clinical value of sperm morphology for in-vivo fertility: comparison between World Health Organization criteria of 1987 and 1992. Hum Reprod 10:587–593

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ayala C, Steinberger E, Smith DP (1996) The influence of semen analysis parameters on the fertility potential of infertile couples. JAndrol 17:718–725

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chia SE, Lim ST, Tay SK, et al. (2000) Factors associated with male fertility: a case-control study of 218 infertile and 240 fertile men. BJOG 107:55–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Holland-Moritz H, Krause W (1992) Semen analysis and fertility prognosis in andrological patients. Int J Androl 15:473–484

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Eggert-Kruse W, Schwarz H, Rohr G, et al. (1996) Sperm morphology assessment using strict criteria and male fertility under in-vivo conditions of conception. Hum Reprod 11:139–146

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dunphy BC, Neal LM, Cooke ID (1989) The clinical value of conventional semen analysis. Fertil Steril 51:324–329

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohlen BJ, te Velde ER, van Kooij RJ, et al. (1998) Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination for treating male subfertility: a controlled study. Hum Reprod 13:1153–1158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bartoov B, Eltes F, Pansky M, et al. (1993) Estimating fertility potential via semen analysis data. Hum Reprod 8:65–70

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Siebert TI, Van der Merwe FH, Kruger TF, Ombelet W (2007) How do we define male subfertility and what is the prevalence in the general population? In: Kruger TF, Oehninger SC (eds) Male fertility: diagnosis and treatment. Informa Healthcare, London, pp 269–276

    Google Scholar 

  17. Burkman LJ, Coddington CC, Franken DR, et al. (1998) The hemizona assay (HZA): development of a diagnostic test for the binding of human spermatozoa to the human hemizona pellucida to predict fertilization potential. Fertil Steril 49:688–697

    Google Scholar 

  18. Liu DY, Baken HWG (1994) Tests for human sperm zona pellucida binding and penetration. In: Tesarik J (ed) Male factor in human infertility, Ares Serono Symposium, Rome. Front Endocrinol 8:169–185

    Google Scholar 

  19. Liu DY, Baker HW (2003) Dirordered zona pellucida-induced acrosome reaction and failure of in vitro fertilization in patients with unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril;79:74–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Esterhuizen AD, Franken DR, Lourens JGH, Van Rooyen LH (2002) Clinical importance of zona pellucida induced acrosome reaction (SIAR test) in cases of failed human fertilization. Hum Reprod 16:138–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC (1992) Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet 340:17–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group (2007) Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in 2006: evidence and evolution. Hum Reprod Update 13:515–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bhattacharya S, Hamilton MPR, Shaaban M, et al. (2001) Conventional in-vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection for the treatment of non-malefactor infertility: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 357:2075–2079

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Van der Merwe FH, Kruger TF (2005) The use of semen parameters to identify the subfertile male in the general population. Gynecol Obstet Invest 59:86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Van Rumste MM, Evers JL, Farquhar CM, Blake DA (2000) Intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection versus partial zona dissection, subzonal insemination and conventional techniques for oocyte insemination during in vitro fertilization. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD001301

    Google Scholar 

  26. Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A (2004) A review of ten years experience of ICSI. Hum Reprod Update 10:19–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Foong SC, Fleetham JA, O’Keane JA, et al. (2006) A prospective randomized trial of conventional in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in unexplained infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet 23:137–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Van Rumste M, Evers JLH, Farquhar C (2003) Intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional techniques for oocyte insemination during in vitro fertilization in patients with non-male subfertility (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 2:CD001301

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tournaye H, Verheyen G, Albano C, et al. (2002) Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial and a meta-analysis of the literature. Fert Steril 78:1030–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ola B, Afnan M, Sharif K, et al. (2001) Should ICSI be the treatment of choice for all cases of in vitro conception. Hum Reprod 16:2485–2490

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Stellenbosch University, PO Box 19063, Tygerberg, 7505, Cape Town, Afrique du Sud

    T. F. Kruger & D. Rossouw Franken

Authors
  1. T. F. Kruger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Rossouw Franken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag France, Paris

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kruger, T.F., Rossouw Franken, D. (2011). The evaluation of semen and its use in ART. In: Physiologie, pathologie et thérapie de la reproduction chez l’humain. Springer, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0061-5_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0061-5_30

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Paris

  • Print ISBN: 978-2-8178-0060-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-2-8178-0061-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation