Effects of spermiogram parameters in patients who attempt intrauterine insemination

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is detection of optimal sperm parameters by evaluating the effects of motile sperm count and morphology on clinical pregnancy rates in patients who applied for intrauterine insemination. Methods: This study comprised 279 intrauterine insemination cycles, which has applied to 172 infertile patients between January 2003 and June 2005, in Süleymaniye Obstetrics-Gynecology Hospital, Infertility Unit. We, firstly compared the clinical pregnancy rates according to processed total progressive motile sperm count, by classifying IUI cycles into two groups as

Keywords

• intrauterine insemination, spermiogram, pregnancy

İntrauterin inseminasyon uygulanan hastalara spermiogram parametrelerinin etkisi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı intrauterin inseminasyon uygulanan hastalarda hareketli sperm sayısı ve morfolojinin gebelik oranlarına etkisinin değerlendirilip optimal sperm parametrelerinin tespitidir. Yöntemler: Ocak 2003 ve Haziran 2005 tarihleri arasında Süleymaniye Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Tüp Bebek Kliniği\'nde 172 infertil hastaya uygulanan 279 intrauterin inseminasyon siklüsünü içeren bir çalışmadır. Intrauterin inseminasyon (IUI) siklüslerini ilk önce hazırlama sonrası TPMSS\'na göre

Anahtar Kelimeler

• intrauterin inseminasyon, spermiogram, gebelik

Kaynakça

1. Zhao Y, Vlahos N, Wyncott D, et al. Impact of semen characteristics on the success of intrauterine insemi- nation. J Assist Reprod Genet 2004;21:143-148.
2. Duran HE, Morshedi M, Kruger T, et al. Intrauterine in- semination: a systematic review on determinants of success. Hum Reprod Update 2002;8:373-384.
3. Bensdorp A, Cohlen BJ, Heineman MJ, et al. Intra- uterine insemination for male subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;4: CD000360.
4. Tarlatzis BC, Bontis J, Kolibianakis EM, et al. Evalua- tion of intrauterine insemination with washed sperma- tozoa from the husband in the treatment of infertility. Hum Reprod 1991;6:1241.
5. Menkveld R, Rhemrev JP, Franken DR, et al. Acroso- mal morphology as a novel criterion for male infertility diagnosis: relation with acrosin activity, morphology (strict criteria), and fertilization in vitro. Fertil Steril 1996;65:637-644.
6. Ombelet W, Fourie FR, Vandeput H, et al. Teratozoo- spermia and in vitro fertilization: a randomized pro- spective study. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1479-1484.
7. Robinson JN, Lockwood GM, Dokras A, et al. Does isolated teratozoospermia affect performance in in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer? Hum Reprod 1994;9:870-874.
8. Francavilla F, Romano R, Santucci R, et al. Effect of sperm morphology and motile sperm count on out- come of intrauterine insemination in oligozoospermia and/or asthenospermia. Fertil Steril 1990;53: 892-897.

9. Burr RW, Siegberg R, Flaherty S, et al. The influence of sperm morphology and the number of motile sperm count inseminated on the outcome intrauterine insem- ination combined with mild ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 1996;65:127-132.
10. Lindheim SR, Barad DH, Zinger M, et al. Abnormal sperm morphology is highly predictive of pregnancy outcome during controlled ovarian hiperstimulation and intrauterine insemination. J Asist Reprod Genet 1996;13:569-572.
11. Hauser R, Yogev L, Botchan A, et al. Intrauterine in- semination in male factor subinfertility: significance of sperm motility and morphology assessed by strict cri- teria. Andrologia 2001;33:13-17.
12. Leu GZ, Lee RKK, Su JT, et al. Using sperm morphol- ogy with Kruger’s criteria for indication of micromanip- ulation in IVF program. J Reprod Infertil 1995;4:42-47.
13. Matorras R, Corcostegui B, Peraz C, et al. Sperm mor- phology analysis (strict criteria) in male factor infertility is not a prognostic factor in intrauterine insemination with husband’s sperm. Fertil Steril 1995;63:608-611.
14. Check ML, Bollendorf, Check JH, Katsoff D. Reevalu- ation of the evaluating sperm morphology using strict criteria. Arch Andrology 2002;48:1-3.
15. Terada Y, Fukaya T, Haraya H, et al. Sperm motility characteristics and pregnancy outcome of artificial in- semination with husband’s semen for male infertility. Tohoku J Exp Med 1995;177:337-341.
16. Burr RW, Siegberg R, Flaherty S, et al. The influence of sperm morphology and the number of motile sperm count inseminated on the outcome intrauterine insem- ination combined with mild ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 1996;65:127-132.
17. Horvath PN, Bohrer M, Sheldon RN, et al. The re- lationship of semen parameters to cycle fecundity in superovulated women undergoing intrauterine insem- ination. Fertil Steril 1989;52:288-294.
18. Huang HY, Lee CL, Lai YM, et al. The impact of the total motile sperm count on the success of intrauterine insemination with husband’s spermatozoa. J Asist Re- prod Genet 1996;13:56-63.
19. Van Voorhis BJ, Barnett M, Sparks AE, et al. Effect of the motile sperm count on the efficacy and cost ef- fectiveness of intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2001;75:661-668.
20. Wainer R, Albert M, Dorion A, et al. Influence of the number of motil spermatozoa inseminated and of their morphology on the success of intrauterine insemina- tion. Hum Reprod 2004;9:2060-2065.
21. Berker B, Şükür YE, Kahraman K, et al. Absence of rap- id and linear progressive motile spermatozoa “grade a” in semen specimens: does it change intrauterine insemination outcomes? Urology 2012;80:1262-1266.