Interpretation of Semen Analysis



Infertility is defined as the inability to conceive after one year of unprotected intercourse and affects globally about 15–20 % of couples. Of these, 30–40 % can be attributed to an identifiable male factor, 30–40 % to female factors, and the remaining 20 % to a combination of both male and female factors (Guttmacher 1956; Thonneau et al. 1991). Although many couples may present with an obvious and identifiable cause for the subfertility, there are cases with unexplained reasons for the delay in conception. Traditional semen analysis is the first test used to evaluate the male partner. This chapter discusses the basics of semen analysis and interpretation of the results in the light of the 2010 WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen.


Semen Analysis Male Infertility Sperm Concentration Sperm Morphology Semen Parameter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abbey A, Halman LJ, Andrews FM. Psychosocial, treatment, and demographic predictors of the stress associated with infertility. Fertil Steril. 1992;57(1):122–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal A, Allamaneni SS, Nallella KP, George AT, Mascha E. Correlation of reactive oxygen species levels with the fertilization rate after in vitro fertilization: a qualified meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:228–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agarwal A, Sharma RK, Nallella KP, Thomas Jr AJ, Alvarez JG, Sikka SC. Reactive oxygen species as an independent marker of male factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:878–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agarwal A, Makker K, Sharma R. Clinical relevance of oxidative stress in male factor infertility: an update. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2008;59:2–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ahmadi A, Ng SC. Fertilizing ability of DNA-damaged spermatozoa. J Exp Zool. 1999;284:696–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aitken RJ. Whither must spermatozoa wander? The future of laboratory seminology. Asian J Androl. 2010;12:99–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aitken RJ, Baker MA. The role of proteomics in understanding sperm cell biology. Int J Androl. 2008;31:295–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aitken RJ, Clarkson JS. Cellular basis of defective sperm function and its association with the genesis of reactive oxygen species by human spermatozoa. J Reprod Fertil. 1987;81:459–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Aitken RJ, Clarkson JS. Significance of reactive oxygen species in defining the efficacy of sperm preparation techniques. J Androl. 1988;9:367–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Aitken RJ, Sutton M, Warner P, Richardson DW. Relationship between the movement characteristics of human spermatozoa and their ability to penetrate cervical mucus and zona-free hamster oocytes. J Reprod Fertil. 1985;73:441–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Aitken RJ, Clarkson JS, Fishel S. Generation of reactive oxygen species, lipid peroxidation and human sperm function. Biol Reprod. 1989a;41:183–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Aitken RJ, Clarkson JS, Hargreave TB, Irvine DS, Wu FC. Analysis of the relationship between defective sperm function and the generation of reactive oxygen species in cases of oligozoospermia. J Androl. 1989b;10:214–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Aitken RJ, Irvine DS, Wu FC. Prospective analysis of sperm-oocyte fusion and reactive oxygen species generation as criteria for the diagnosis of infertility. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;164:542–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Alvarez C, Castilla JA, Martinez L, Ramirez JP, Vergara F, Gaforio JJ. Biological variation of seminal parameters in healthy subjects. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:2082–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Amelar RD. Coagulation, liquefaction and viscosity of human semen. J Urol. 1962;87:187–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Anderson DJ. Should male infertility patients be tested for leukocytospermia? Fertil Steril. 1995;63:246–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Auger J, Eustache F, Andersen AG, Irvine DS, Jorgensen N, Skakkebaek NE, et al. Sperm morphological defects related to environment, lifestyle and medical history of 1001 male partners of pregnant women from four European cities. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2710–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Baker DJ, Paterson MA, Klaassen JM, Wyrick-Glatzel J. Semen evaluations in the clinical laboratory: how well are they being performed? Lab Med. 1994;25(8):509–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Baker K, Li J, Sabanegh E. Analysis of semen parameters in male referrals: impact of reference limits, stratification by fertility categories, predictors of change, and comparison of normal semen parameters in subfertile couples. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(1):59–65.e5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Barratt CL, McLeod ID, Dunphy BC, Cooke ID. Prognostic value of two putative sperm function tests: hypo-osmotic swelling and bovine sperm mucus penetration test (penetrak). Hum Reprod. 1992;7:1240–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Barratt CLR, et al. Prognostic significance of computerized motility analysis for in vivo fertility. Fertil Steril. 1993;60:520–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Barratt CL, Mansell S, Beaton C, Tardif S, Oxenham SK. Diagnostic tools in male infertility-the question of sperm dysfunction. Asian J Androl. 2011;13:53–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Benchaib M, Lornage J, Mazoyer C, Lejeune H, Salle B, François Guerin J. Sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation as a prognostic indicator of assisted reproductive technology outcome. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:93–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Berman NG, Wang C, Paulsen CA. Methodological issues in the analysis of human sperm concentration data. J Androl. 1996;17:68–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Björndahl L. The usefulness and significance of assessing rapidly progressive spermatozoa. Asian J Androl. 2010;12:33–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Björndahl L. What is normal semen quality? On the use and abuse of reference limits for the interpretation of semen analysis results. Hum Fertil. 2011;14:179–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Björndahl L, Söderlund I, Kvist U. Evaluation of the one-step eosin-nigrosin staining technique for human sperm vitality assessment. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:813–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Björndahl L, Söderlund I, Johansson S, Mohammadieh M, Pourian MR, Kvist U. Why the recommendations for eosin-nigrosin staining techniques for human sperm vitality assessment must change. J Androl. 2004;25:671–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Björndahl L, Mortimer D, Barratt CR, et al. A practical guide to basic laboratory andrology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Björndahl L, Mortimer D, Barratt CR, et al. A practical guide to basic laboratory andrology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010b. p. 77–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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;17:550–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Borini A, Tarozzi N, Bizzaro D, Bonu MA, Fava L, Flamigni C, et al. Sperm DNA fragmentation: paternal effect on early post-implantation embryo development in ART. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2876–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Bornman R, Aneck-Hahn N. The interpretation of a semen analysis. Continuing Medical Education. 2012;30(5):163–5.Google Scholar
  34. Bostofte E, Serup J, Rebbe H. Hammen semen quality classification and pregnancies obtained during a twenty-year follow-up period. Fertil Steril. 1981;36:84–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Boyd JC. Defining laboratory reference values and decision limits: populations, intervals, and interpretations. Asian J Androl. 2010;12(1):83–90.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Brazil C. Practical semen analysis: from A to Z. Asian J Androl. 2010;12:14–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Bungum M, Humaidan P, Axmon A, Spano M, Bungum L, Erenpreiss J, et al. Sperm DNA integrity assessment in prediction of assisted reproduction technology outcome. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:174–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Carlsen E, Giwercman A, Keiding N, Skakkebaek NE. Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years. BMJ. 1992;305:609–13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Carlsen E, Petersen JH, Andersson AM, Skakkebaek NE. Effects of ejaculatory frequency and season on variations in semen quality. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:358–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Catanzariti F, Cantoro U, Lacetera V, Muzzonigro G, Polito M. Comparison between WHO (World Health Organization) 2010 and WHO 1999 parameters for semen analysis - interpretation of 529 consecutive samples. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2013;85(3):125–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Cho C, Jung-Ha H, Willis WD, Goulding EH, Stein P, Xu Z, et al. Protamine 2 deficiency leads to sperm DNA damage and embryo death in mice. Biol Reprod. 2003;69:211–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Cocuzza M, Esteves SC. Shedding light on the controversy surrounding the temporal decline in human sperm counts: a systematic review. Scientific World J. 2014;2014:365691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Coetzee K, Kruge TF, Lombard CJ. Predictive value of normal sperm morphology: a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4:73–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Comhaire FH, Vermeulen L, Hinting A, Schoonjans F. Accuracy of sperm characteristics in predicting the in vitro fertilizing capacity of semen. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1988;5:326–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Consensus workshop on advanced diagnostic andrology techniques. ESHRE (European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology) Andrology Special Interest Group. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:1463–79.Google Scholar
  46. Cooper TG, Atkinson AD, Nieschlag E. Experience with external quality control in spermatology. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(3):765–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Cooper TG, Björndahl L, Vreeburg J, Nieschlag E. Semen analysis and external quality control schemes for semen analysis need global standardization. Int J Androl. 2002;25(5):306–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Cooper TG, Noonan E, von Eckardstein S, Auger J, Baker HW, Behre HM, et al. World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(3):231–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Cross NL, Morales P, Overstreet JW, Hanson FW. Two simple methods for detecting acrosome-reacted human sperm. Gamete Res. 1986;15:213–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Cummins JM, Pember SM, Jequier AM, Yovich JL, Hartmann PE. A test of the human sperm acrosome reaction following ionophore challenge. Relationship to fertility and other seminal parameters. J Androl. 1991;12:98–103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Deck AJ, Berger RE. Should vasectomy reversal be performed in men with older female partners? J Urol. 2000;163(1):105–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Dohle GR, Diemer T, Kopa Z, Krausz C, Giwercman A, Jungwirth A, et al. European association of urology guidelines on vasectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;61:159–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Dunson DB, Baird DD, Colombo B. Increased infertility with age in men and women. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(1):51–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Eliasson R. Semen analysis and laboratory workup. In: Cockett ATK, Urry RL, editors. Male infertility. Workup, treatment and research. New York: Grune & Stratton; 1977. p. 169–88.Google Scholar
  55. Eliasson R. Semen analysis with regard to sperm number, sperm morphology and functional aspects. Asian J Androl. 2010;12:26–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Eliasson R, Hellinga G, Lubcke F, Meyhöfer W, Nierman H, Steeno O, et al. Empfehlungen zur Nomenklatur in der Andrologie. [Recommendations regarding nomenclature in Andrology.] Andrologie. 1970;2:186–187.Google Scholar
  57. Esfandiari N, Burjaq H, Gotlieb L, Casper RF. Seminal hyperviscosity is associated with poor outcome of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer: a prospective study. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:1739–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Esteves SC. Clinical relevance of routine semen analysis and controversies surrounding the 2010 World Health Organization criteria for semen examination. Int Braz J Urol. 2014;40:443–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Esteves SC, Miyaoka R, Agarwal A. An update on the clinical assessment of the infertile male. Clinics. 2011;66(4):691–700.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Esteves SC, Zini A, Aziz N, Alvarez JG, Sabanegh Jr ES, Agarwal A. Critical appraisal of World Health Organization’s new reference values for human semen characteristics and effect on diagnosis and treatment of subfertile men. Urology. 2012;79(1):16–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Evenson DP, Jost LK, Marshall D, Zinaman MJ, Clegg E, Purvis K, et al. Utility of the sperm chromatin structure assay as a diagnostic and prognostic tool in the human fertility clinic. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1039–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Fénichel P, Donzeau M, Farahifar D, Basteris B, Ayraud N, Hsi BL. Dynamics of human sperm acrosome reaction: relation with in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1991;55:994–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Fréour T, Jean M, Mirallié S, Dubourdieu S, Barrière P. 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;149:186–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Frydman N, Prisant N, Hesters L, Frydman R, Tachdjian G, Cohen-Bacrie P, et al. Adequate ovarian follicular status does not prevent the decrease in pregnancy rates associated with high sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:92–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Garrett C, Baker HWG. A new fully automated system for the morphometric analysis of human sperm heads. Fertil Steril. 1995;63:1306–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Garrett C, et al. Automated semen analysis: “zona pellucida preferred” sperm morphology and straight line velocity are related to pregnancy rates in subfertile couples. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:1643–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ginsburg KA, Armant DR. The influence on chamber characteristics on the reliability of sperm concentration and movement measurements obtained by manual and video-micrographic analysis. Fertil Steril. 1990;53:882–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Gomez E, Aitken J. Impact of in vitro fertilization culture media on peroxidative damage to human spermatozoa. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:880–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Gunalp S, Onculoglu C, Gurgan T, et al. A study of semen parameters with emphasis on sperm morphology in a fertile population: an attempt to develop clinical thresholds. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:110–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Guttmacher A. Factors affecting normal expectancy of conception. J Am Med Assoc. 1956;161:855–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Guzick DS, Overstreet JW, Factor-Litvak P, Brazil CK, Nakajima ST, Coutifaris C, et al. Sperm morphology, motility, and concentration in fertile and infertile men. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1388–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Hamada A, Esteves SC, Nizza M, Agarwal A. Unexplained male infertility: diagnosis and management. Int Braz J Urol. 2012;38:576–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Handelsman DJ. Estrogens and falling sperm counts. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2001;13:317–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Haugen TB, Egeland T, Magnus O. Semen parameters in Norwegian fertile men. J Androl. 2006;27:66–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Henkel R, 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;8:2128–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Irvine DS, Aitken RJ. Predictive value of in-vitro sperm function tests in the context of an AID service. Hum Reprod. 1986;1:539–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Jarow JP, Sanzone JJ. Risk factors for male partner antisperm antibodies. J Urol. 1992;148:1805–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Jensen TK, Slama R, Ducot B, Suominen J, Cawood EH, Andersen AG, et al. Regional differences in waiting time to pregnancy among fertile couples from four European cities. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2697–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Jequier AM. Is quality assurance in semen analysis still really necessary? A clinician’s viewpoint. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:2039–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Jequier AM. Semen analysis: a new manual and its application to the understanding of semen and its pathology. Asian J Androl. 2010;12:11–3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Jorgensen N, Andersen AG, Eustache F, et al. Regional differences in semen quality in Europe. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1012–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Jouannet P, Ducot B, Feneux D, Spira A. Male factors and the likelihood of pregnancy in infertile couples. I. Study of sperm characteristics. Int J Androl. 1988;11:379–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Katsuki T, Hara T, Ueda K, Tanaka J, Ohama K. Prediction of outcomes of assisted reproduction treatment using the calcium ionophore-induced acrosome reaction. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:469–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Keegan BR, Barton S, Sanchez X, Berkeley AS, Krey LC, Grifo J. Isolated teratozoospermia does not affect in vitro fertilization outcome and is not an indication for intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:1583–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Keel BA. The semen analysis. In: Keel B, Webster B, editors. CRC handbook of the laboratory diagnosis and treatment of infertility. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1990. p. 27–69.Google Scholar
  86. Keel BA. Within- and between-subject variation in semen parameters in infertile men and normal semen donors. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:128–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Keel BA, Quinn P, Schmidt CF, Serafy NT, Serafy NT, Schalue TK. Results of the American association of bioanalysts national proficiency testing programme in andrology. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(3):680–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Kolettis PN, Sabanegh ES. Significant medical pathology discovered during a male infertility evaluation. J Urol. 2001;166(1):178–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Kruger TF, Acosta AA, Simmons KF, et al. Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1988;49:112–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Lin MH, Kuo-Kuang Lee R, Li SH, Lu CH, Sun FJ, Hwu YM. Sperm chromatin structure assay parameters are not related to fertilization rates, embryo quality, and pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection, but might be related to spontaneous abortion rates. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:352–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Lindholmer C. The importance of seminal plasma for human sperm motility. Biol Reprod. 1974;10:533–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Liu DY, Baker HW. Disordered zona pellucida-induced acrosome reaction and failure of in vitro fertilization in patients with unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril. 2003;79:74–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Liu DY, et al. Relationship between sperm motility assessed with the Hamilton thorn motility analyzer and fertilization rates in vitro. J Androl. 1991;12:231–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. MacLeod J, Gold RZ. The male factor in fertility and infertility. III. An analysis of motile activity in the spermatozoa of 1000 fertile men and 1000 men in infertile marriage. Fertil Steril. 1951;2:187–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. MacLeod J, Gold RZ. The male factor in fertility and sterility V. Effect of continence on semen quality. Fertil Steril. 1952;3:297–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Makler A. A new chamber for rapid sperm count and motility determination. Fertil Steril. 1978;30:313–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Male Infertility Best Practice Policy Committee of the American Urological Association, Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Report on varicocele and infertility. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(1):S142–5.Google Scholar
  98. Male Infertility Best Practice Policy Committee of the American Urological Association, Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Report on optimal evaluation of the infertile male. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(5 Suppl 1):S202–9.Google Scholar
  99. Marchetti C, Obert G, Deffosez A, Formstecher P, Marchetti P. Study of mitochondrial membrane potential, reactive oxygen species, DNA fragmentation and cell viability by flow cytometry in human sperm. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1257–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Menkveld R. Chapter 9: The basic semen analysis. In: Oehninger S, Kruger TF, editors. Male infertility. Diagnosis and treatment. Oxford: Informa Healthcare; 2007. p. 141–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Menkveld R. Clinical significance of the low normal sperm morphology value as proposed in the fifth edition of the WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. Asian J Androl. 2010;12(1):47–58.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Menkveld R, Kruger FT. Basic semen analysis. In: Acosta AA, Kruger TF, editors. Human spermatozoa in assisted reproduction. Carnforth: Parthenon Publishing; 1996. p. 53–71.Google Scholar
  103. Menkveld R, Stander FS, Kotze TJ, Kruger TF, van Zyl JA. The evaluation of morphological characteristics of human spermatozoa according to stricter criteria. Hum Reprod. 1990;5:586–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Menkveld R, Stander FSH, Kruger TF. Comparison between acrosome index and teratozoospermia index as additional criteria to sperm morphology in the prediction of expected in-vitro fertilization outcome. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Menkveld R, Holleboom CAG, Rhemrev JPT. Measurement and significance of sperm morphology. Asian J Androl. 2011;13:59–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Mortimer D. Sperm preparation techniques and iatrogenic failures of in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1991;6:173–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Mortimer D. Semen microbiology and virology. In: Practical laboratory andrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994a. p. 127–33.Google Scholar
  108. Mortimer D. Antisperm antibodies. In: Practical laboratory andrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994b. p. 111–25.Google Scholar
  109. Mortimer D. Practical laboratory andrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994c.Google Scholar
  110. Mortimer D. Sperm preparation methods. J Androl. 2000;21:357–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Mortimer D, Menkveld R. Sperm morphology assessment – historical perspectives and current opinions. J Androl. 2001;22:192–205.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Mortimer D, Templeton AA, Lenton EA, Coleman RA. Influence of abstinence and ejaculation-to analysis delay on semen analysis parameters of suspected infertile men. Arch Androl. 1982;8:251–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Mortimer D, Pandya IJ, Sawers RS. Relationship between human sperm motility characteristics and sperm penetration into human cervical mucus in vitro. J Reprod Fertil. 1986;78:93–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Mortimer D, Mortimer ST, Shu MA, Swart R. A simplified approach to sperm-cervical mucus interaction testing using a hyaluronate migration test. Hum Reprod. 1990;5:835–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Munuce MJ, Bregni C, Carizza C, Mendeluk G. Semen culture, leukocytospermia and the presence of sperm antibodies in seminal hyperviscosity. Arch Androl. 1999;42:21–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Murray KS, James A, McGeady JB, Reed ML, Kuang WW, Nangia AK. The effect of the new 2010 World Health Organization criteria for semen analyses on male infertility. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(6):1428–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Nallella KP, Sharma RK, Aziz N, Agarwal A. Significance of sperm characteristics in the evaluation of male infertility. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:629–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Niederberger CS. Semen and the curse of cutoffs. J Urol. 2011;185(2):381–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Oehninger S, Blackmore P, Morshedi M, Sueldo C, Acosta AA, Alexander NJ. Defective calcium influx and acrosome reaction (spontaneous and progesterone-induced) in spermatozoa of infertile men with severe teratozoospermia. Fertil Steril. 1994;61:349–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Payne JF, Raburn DJ, Couchman GM, Price TM, Jamison MG, Walmer DK. Redefining the relationship between sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation as measured by the sperm chromatin structure assay and outcomes of assisted reproductive techniques. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:356–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Report on varicocele and infertility. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:S247–9.Google Scholar
  122. Quintero I, Ghersevich S, Caille A, Munuce MJ, Daniele SM, Morisoli L. Effects of human oviductal in vitro secretion on spermatozoa and search of sperm-oviductal proteins interactions. Int J Androl. 2005;28:137–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Rivera-Montes AM, Rivera-Gallegos A, Rodríguez-Villasana E, Juárez-Bengoa A, Díaz-Pérez M de los A, Hernández-Valencia M. Estimate of the variability in the evaluation of semen analysis. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2013;81(11):639–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. Rogers B, Brentwood J. Capacitation, acrosome reaction and fertilization. In: Zaneveld L, Chattterton T, editors. Biochemistry of mammalian reproduction. New York: Wiley; 1982. p. 203.Google Scholar
  125. Rowe J, Comhaire FH, Hargreave TB, Mahmoud AMA. WHO manual for the standardized investigation, diagnosis and management of the infertile male. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  126. Sadeu JC, Hughes CL, Agarwal S, Foster WG. Alcohol, drugs, caffeine, tobacco, and environmental contaminant exposure: reproductive health consequences and clinical implications. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2010;40:633–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Sanchez-Pozo MC, Mendiola J, Serrano M, Mozas J, Bjorndahl L, Menkveld R, et al. Proposal of guidelines for the appraisal of SEMen QUAlity studies (SEMQUA). Hum Reprod. 2013;28:10–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Schlegel PN. Is assisted reproduction the optimal treatment for varicocele-associated male infertility? A cost-effectiveness analysis. Urology. 1997;49(1):83–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Shibahara H, Obara H, Ayustawati, et al. Prediction of pregnancy by intrauterine insemination using CASA estimates and strict criteria in patients with male factor infertility. Int J Androl. 2004;27:63–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Sifer C, Sasportes T, Barraud V, Poncelet C, Rudant J, Porcher R, et al. World Health Organization grade ‘a’ motility and zona-binding test accurately predict IVF outcome for mild male factor and unexplained infertilities. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:2769–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Sigman M, Lipshultz LI, Howards SS. Office evaluation of the subfertile male. In: Lipshultz LI, Howards SS, Niederberger CS, editors. Infertility in the male. 4th ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009. p. 153–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Slama R, Eustache F, Ducot B, Jensen TK, Jorgensen N, Horte A, et al. Time to pregnancy and semen parameters: a cross-sectional study among fertile couples from four European cities. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:503–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Smith KD, Rodriguez-Rigau LJ, Steinberger E. Relation between indices of semen analysis and pregnancy rate in infertile couples. Fertil Steril. 1977;28:1314–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia & Colegio Brasileiro de Radiologia; Projeto Diretrizes da Associacao Medica Brasileira: Varicocele. Available from: Cited 5 Oct 2013.
  135. Spiessens C, Vanderschueren D, Meuleman C, et al. Isolated teratozoospermia and intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:1185–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Stewart TM, Liu DY, Garrett C, Jorgensen N, Brown EH, et al. Associations between andrological measures, hormones and semen quality in fertile Australian men: inverse relationship between obesity and sperm output. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:1561–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Swan SH, Brazil C, Drobnis EZ, Liu F, Kruse RL, Hatch M, et al. Geographic differences in semen quality of fertile U.S. Males. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111:414–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Tesarik J. Appropriate timing of the acrosome reaction is a major requirement for the fertilizing spermatozoon. Hum Reprod. 1989;4:957–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. Thonneau P, Marchand S, Tallex A, Ferial ML, Ducot B, Lansac J, et al. Incidence and main causes of infertility in a resident population (1,850,000) of three French regions (1988–1989). Hum Reprod. 1991;6:811–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. Van den Bergh M, Emiliani S, Biramane J, Vannin AS, Englert Y. A first prospective study of the individual straight line velocity of the spermatozoon and its influences on the fertilization rate after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:3103–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Van Waart J, Kruger TF, Lombard CJ, Ombelet W. Predictive value of normal sperm morphology in intrauterine insemination (IUI): a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7:495–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Vasan SS. Semen analysis and sperm function tests: how much to test? Indian Journal of Urology. 2011;27(1):41–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Vieira M. New World Health Organization reference values for semen analysis: where do we stand? Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2013;11(2):263–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Wolff H, Panhans A, Zebhauser M, Meurer M. Comparison of three methods to detect white blood cells in semen: leukocyte esterase dipstick test, granulocyte elastase enzyme-immunoassay, and peroxidase cytochemistry. Fertil Steril. 1992;58:1260–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987.Google Scholar
  146. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres; 1992.Google Scholar
  147. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  148. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  149. Yanagimachi R. Penetration of guinea-pig spermatozoa into hamster eggs in vitro. J Reprod Fertil. 1972;28:477–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Yanagimachi R, Yanagimachi H, Rogers B. The use of zona-free animal ova as a test-system for the assessment of the fertilizing capacity of human spermatozoa. Biol Reprod. 1976;15:471–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Yerram N, Sandlow JI, Brannigan RE. Clinical implications of the new 2010 WHO reference ranges for human semen characteristics. J Androl. 2012;33(3):289–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Zinaman MJ, et al. Evaluation of computer-assisted semen analysis (CASA) with IDENT stain to determine sperm concentration. J Androl. 1996;17:288–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. Zini A, Bielecki R, Phang D, Zenzes MT. Correlations between two markers of sperm DNA integrity, DNA denaturation and DNA fragmentation, in fertile and infertile men. Fertil Steril. 2001;75:674–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Zini A, Meriano J, Kader K, Jarvi K, Laskin CA, Cadesky K. Potential adverse effect of sperm DNA damage on embryo quality after ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:3476–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AndrologyManipal Ankur Andrology and Reproductive ServicesBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations