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.
Key words: acrosome reaction, hyperactivated motility, in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, sperm kinetics
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (620.2 KB).
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. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138446. [DOI] [PubMed] [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. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Liu DY, Baker HWG. Tests of human sperm function and fertilization in vitro. Fertil Steril. 1992;58:465–482. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)55247-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Aitken RJ. Assessment of sperm function for IVF. Hum Reprod. 1988;3:89–95. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Davis RO, Katz DF. Operational standards for CASA instruments. J Androl. 1993;14:385–394. [PubMed] [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. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138352. [DOI] [PubMed] [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. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.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. doi: 10.1530/jrf.0.0950755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Veeck L. Atlas of the Human Oocyte and Early Conceptus, Vol 2. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1991. Typical morphology of the human oocyte and conceptus; 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. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a135922. [DOI] [PubMed] [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. doi: 10.1093/humrep/10.suppl_1.60. [DOI] [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. doi: 10.3109/01485019408987809. [DOI] [PubMed] [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. 1997;11:1030–1034. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a019291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Aitken RJ, Baker HWG. Seminal leucocytes: Passengers, terrorists or good samaritans? Hum Reprod. 1995;10:1736–1739. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136165. [DOI] [PubMed] [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. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138350. [DOI] [PubMed] [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] [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. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138680. [DOI] [PubMed] [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] [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. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a135822. [DOI] [PubMed] [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] [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. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)53468-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [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. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0272.1993.tb02709.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Mak C, Kooij RJ, Eimers JM, Velde ER. Human sperm movement assessed with the Hamilton-Thorn motility analyser and in vitro fertilization. Andrology. 1994;26:323–329. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0272.1994.tb00811.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [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. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137994. [DOI] [PubMed] [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. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138353. [DOI] [PubMed] [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. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136240. [DOI] [PubMed] [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. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a135993. [DOI] [PubMed] [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. 1997;19:18–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2605.1996.tb00428.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]