Abstract
Semen analysis is the corner stone of infertility evaluation as it provides information on the functional status of the seminiferous tubules, epididymis and accessory sex glands. The methods on how the human semen should be evaluated are provided by the World Health Organization, which periodically releases manuals that include specific protocols and reference standards. In 2010, the WHO published new criteria for human semen characteristics that were markedly lower than those previously reported. In this review initially it is discussed the limitations of semen analysis as a surrogate measure of a man’s ability to father a pregnancy. Secondly, it is analyzed methodology issues that could explain why the newly released reference values were different from those earlier reported. Thirdly, it is speculated on the likely effects of the 2010 WHO criteria in the management of male infertility. Due to the several inherent limitations of semen analysis as a surrogate marker of male infertility, physicians should exercise caution when interpreting results. A template for semen analysis reports that incorporates the distribution of the semen characteristics of recent fathers in centiles rather than solely the minimum thresholds could aid clinicians to better understand how a given patient results compare with the reference population. Importantly, a male infertility evaluation must go far beyond a simple semen analysis, as it has to be complemented with a proper physical examination, a comprehensive history taking, and relevant endocrine, genetic, and other investigations.
Infertility, Male; Semen Analysis; Andrology; Diagnosis; Spermatozoa; Reference Values; Therapeutics
INTRODUCTION
The World Health Organization (WHO) periodically releases manuals for the laboratory
examination and processing of human semen. While laboratories use these manuals as a
practical guide of standardized methods for performing semen analyses clinicians
rely on the reference of normal limits for interpreting semen analysis results. The
first manual, published in 1980, summarized the clinical experience and research
from the previous eighty years. In its subsequent updates in 1987, 1992, 1999 and
2010, WHO manuals provided substantial improvements on how to assess the seminal
parameters. The reference values that were thought to be compatible with normal male
fertility have also changed (Table-1) (11 . World Health Organization: WHO Laboratory Manual for the
Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-cervical Mucus Interaction, 2nd ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987; pp. 80.
2 . World Health Organization. WHO Laboratory Manual for the
Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-cervical Mucus Interaction, 3rd ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992; pp. 107.
3 . World Health Organization. WHO Laboratory Manual for the
Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-cervical Mucus Interaction, 4th ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999; pp. 128.-44 . World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the
examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Geneva: World Health
Organization. 2010; pp. 271.).
In its latest fifth edition (WHO 2010) the semen analysis reference values are
markedly lower than those of previous editions. Much debate has taken place
thereafter, and a series of reports has questioned the validity of the newly
released reference values (55 . 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.
6 . Esteves SC, Zini A, Aziz N, Alvarez JG, Sabanegh ES Jr, 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: 16-22.
7 . Haidl G: New WHO-reference limits-revolution or storm in a teapot?
Asian J Androl. 2011; 13: 208-11.
8 . 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: 1428-31.-99 . Yerram N, Sandlow JI, Brannigan RE: Clinical implications of the
new 2010 WHO reference ranges for human semen characteristics. J Androl. 2012;
33: 289-90.).
In this review, it is discussed the controversy surrounding the new 2010 WHO criteria for semen analyses. First, we point out the importance and limitations of the routine semen analysis in the workup of male infertility. Then, we present the 2010 WHO cutoff values for human semen characteristics and how they compare with previous references. Third, we critically discuss the methods used for generating these new limits and present our hypotheses to explain these lowered limits. Subsequently, we analyze the likely effect of the 2010 WHO cutoff values on the clinical management of men with unexplained infertility. Lastly, we propose a practical approach to report semen analysis results for those contemplating adopting the 2010 WHO cutoff values for semen characteristics.
Importance and limitations of semen analysis for male infertility evaluation
Semen analysis is the most widely used biomarker to predict male fertility potential (1010 . Esteves SC, Hamada A, Kondray V, Pitchika A, Agarwal A: What every gynecologist should know about male infertility: an update. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012; 286: 217-29.). It provides information on the functional status of the seminiferous tubules, epididymis and accessory sex glands, and its results are often taken as a surrogate measure of a man’s ability to father a pregnancy. Routine semen analysis include: (a) physical characteristics of semen, including liquefaction, viscosity, pH, color and odor; (b) specimen volume; (c) sperm concentration; (d) sperm motility and progression; (e) sperm morphology; (f) leukocyte quantification; and (g) fructose detection in cases where no spermatozoa are found and ejaculate volume is low (1111 . Esteves SC, Miyaoka R, Agarwal A: An update on the clinical assessment of the infertile male. [corrected]. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011; 66: 691-700. Erratum in: Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012; 67: 203.).
Owed to its widespread availability, health care providers usually use semen
analysis alone as the main marker to determine male partner referral for further
investigation. However, semen characteristics that discriminate between
infertile and fertile men are not well defined, and results fall within the
accepted reference ranges in up to 40% of those suffering from infertility
(1212 . 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 8; 345: 1388-93.
13 . Moghissi KS, Wallach EE: Unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril.
1983; 39: 5-21.-1414 . van der Steeg JW, Steures P, Eijkemans MJ, F Habbema JD, Hompes
PG, Kremer JA, et al.: Role of semen analysis in subfertile couples. Fertil
Steril. 2011 1; 95: 1013-9.). Not only sperm production varies widely in same men but also
conventional semen analysis neither tests for the diverse array of biological
properties spermatozoa express as an eminently specialized cell nor accounts for
putative sperm dysfunctions such as immature chromatin or fragmented DNA. In
addition, there is a wide variation on how laboratories perform semen analysis.
In this section, we will continue to discuss the major drawbacks of semen
analysis for male infertility evaluation.
Biological intra-individual variability of semen parameters
The semen parameters from same individuals are highly variable. Many conditions
including the duration of ejaculatory abstinence, activity of the accessory sex
glands, analytical errors, and inherent biological variability account for such
discrepancies (1515 . Alvarez C, Castilla JA, Martínez L, Ramírez JP, Vergara F, Gaforio
JJ: Biological variation of seminal parameters in healthy subjects. Hum Reprod.
2003; 18: 2082-8.
16 . Castilla JA, Alvarez C, Aguilar J, González-Varea C, Gonzalvo MC,
Martínez L: Influence of analytical and biological variation on the clinical
interpretation of seminal parameters. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21:
847-51.
17 . Keel BA: Within- and between-subject variation in semen parameters
in infertile men and normal semen donors. Fertil Steril. 2006; 85:
128-34.-1818 . Poland ML, Moghissi KS, Giblin PT, Ager JW, Olson JM: Variation of
semen measures within normal men. Fertil Steril. 1985; 44:
396-400.). In one study the within-subject variability of twenty
healthy subjects assessed over a 10-week follow-up ranged from 10.3% to 26.8%
(1515 . Alvarez C, Castilla JA, Martínez L, Ramírez JP, Vergara F, Gaforio
JJ: Biological variation of seminal parameters in healthy subjects. Hum Reprod.
2003; 18: 2082-8.). Sperm concentration showed the
highest within-subject variation (26.8%), followed by morphology (19.6%) and
progressive motility (15.2%) whereas vitality had the lowest variation (10.3%).
The utility of population-based reference values is related to the individual
variability of a particular characteristic. Reference values of characteristics
with atributable individuality, including the ones routinely assessed in the
semen, are generally of limited utility. It means that individual subjects could
present results that were very unusual for them, and such results might have
been accounted when establishing the reference thresholds. For the aforesaid
reasons and other uncontrolled factors such as the regression towards the mean,
it is impossible to take the results of a single semen specimen as a surrogate
for a man’s ability to father a child unless when at extreme low levels (1919 . Jequier AM: Is quality assurance in semen analysis still really
necessary? A clinician’s viewpoint. Hum Reprod. 2005; 20:
2039-42.). Regression towards the mean is the
phenomenon in which a variable would tend to be closer to the average on a
second measurement if it were extreme in its first measurement. This
uncontrolled factor should be contemplated when designing studies involving
semen analysis because following an extreme random event the next random event
is less likely to be extreme. It has been shown that sperm concentration and
motility were significantly higher in the second test in men with previous
abnormal semen analyses results (2020 . Baker HW, Kovacs GT: Spontaneous improvement in semen quality:
regression towards the mean. Int J Androl. 1985; 8: 421-6.).
Regression towards the mean could be reduced in its magnitude if we used means
of multiple samples (two or three in the case of semen analysis). Hence, it is
prudent that clinicians request at least two semen specimens following 2-5 days
of ejaculatory abstinence to allow a better understanding of the baseline semen
quality status of a given individual (2121 . Berman NG, Wang C, Paulsen CA: Methodological issues in the
analysis of human sperm concentration data. J Androl. 1996; 17:
68-73.
22 . 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.-2323 . Sánchez-Pozo MC, Mendiola J, Serrano M, Mozas J, Björndahl L,
Menkveld R, et al.: Proposal of guidelines for the appraisal of SEMen QUAlity
studies (SEMQUA). Hum Reprod. 2013; 28: 10-21.).
Sperm dysfunctions not tested in the routine semen analysis
Up to 30% of men with difficulties to father a child have no demonstrable
abnormalities after an initial male infertility workup. Additional tests have
been developed to unravel functional disorders and other sperm abnormalities
that cannot be identified by conventional semen analysis (1111 . Esteves SC, Miyaoka R, Agarwal A: An update on the clinical
assessment of the infertile male. [corrected]. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011; 66:
691-700. Erratum in: Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012; 67: 203.,2424 . Hamada A, Esteves SC, Nizza M, Agarwal A: Unexplained male
infertility: diagnosis and management. Int Braz J Urol. 2012; 38:
576-94.). Some of
these tests include the hypo-osmotic swelling test, computer-assisted sperm
analysis, antisperm antibody test, sperm penetration assay, hemizona assay,
reactive oxygen species (ROS) test, and sperm chromatin integrity test (2525 . Samplaski MK, Agarwal A, Sharma R, Sabanegh E: New generation of
diagnostic tests for infertility: review of specialized semen tests. Int J Urol.
2010; 17: 839-47. Erratum in: Int J Urol. 2011; 18: 262.). Despite being available, there are
inherent difficulties to set up these tests including cost of equipment and
technical complexity. In addition, their predictive value in assessing the male
fertility status is either variable or unknown (2626 . Kovac JR, Pastuszak AW, Lamb DJ: The use of genomics, proteomics,
and metabolomics in identifying biomarkers of male infertility. Fertil Steril.
2013 15; 99: 998-1007.). Not surprisingly, many couples with unexplained infertility
choose assisted reproduction techniques (ART) because of their widespread
availability and overall success despite the male infertility cause (2727 . Sullivan EA, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, Ishihara O, de Mouzon
J, Nygren KG, et al.: International Committee for Monitoring Assisted
Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) world report: assisted reproductive
technology 2004. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28: 1375-90.). Yet, the assessment of sperm oxidative
stress (OS) and DNA integrity has gained clinical importance in recent years.
Oxidative stress, which is present anywhere from 30% to 80% of infertile men, is
a result of the generation of ROS from contaminating leukocytes, defective sperm
and antioxidant depletion (2828 . 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.,2929 . Esteves SC, Agarwal A: Novel concepts in male infertility. Int
Braz J Urol. 2011; 37: 5-15.). ROS target sperm DNA molecules and
ultimately affect the quality of the genetic material transmitted from the
parents to the offspring. Damage to sperm DNA integrity can also result from
apoptosis during spermiogenesis, alterations in chromatin remodeling during
spermiogenesis, as well as exposure to environmental toxicants and gonadotoxins
such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy (3030 . Ashwood-Smith MJ, Edwards RG: DNA repair by oocytes. Mol Hum
Reprod. 1996; 2: 46-51.). Abnormal levels of DNA damage are observed in approximately 5% and
25% of infertile men with normal and abnormal semen analysis, respectively
(3131 . Kodama H, Yamaguchi R, Fukuda J, Kasai H, Tanaka T: Increased
oxidative deoxyribonucleic acid damage in the spermatozoa of infertile male
patients. Fertil Steril. 1997; 68: 519-24.
32 . Spanò M, Bonde JP, Hjøllund HI, Kolstad HA, Cordelli E, Leter G:
Sperm chromatin damage impairs human fertility. The Danish First Pregnancy
Planner Study Team. Fertil Steril. 2000; 73: 43-50.-3333 . 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.). Therefore, some authors propose that the assessment of both
conditions might be included to the male infertility workup algorithm (3434 . Agarwal A, Zini A, Sigman M: Is sperm DNA integrity assessment
useful? J Urol. 2013; 190: 1645-7.,3535 . Zini A, Sigman M: Are tests of sperm DNA damage clinically useful?
Pros and cons. J Androl. 2009; 30: 219-29.).
Evidence of poor standardization in semen analysis among laboratories
Accuracy, the degree to which the measurement reflects the true value, and precision, the reproducibility of the results, are vitally important for clinicians who rely upon the values provided by the laboratory to direct the further work-up, diagnosis and counseling of the infertile male (3636 . Snow-Lisy D, Sabanegh E Jr.: What does the clinician need from an andrology laboratory? Front Biosci (Elite Ed). 2013; 5: 289-304.). When both accuracy and precision are assured, the clinician is able to rely upon the semen analysis results to provide adequate counseling to the infertile couple. However, data from surveys of laboratory practice in the United States and the UK indicate that semen analysis techniques are still poorly standardized.
Among 536 clinical laboratories in the United States only about 60% reported abstinence and indicated the criteria adopted for sperm morphology assessments. Moreover, fewer than half of them performed quality control for commonly assessed parameters such as sperm counts, motility and morphology (3737 . Keel BA, Stembridge TW, Pineda G, Serafy NT Sr.: Lack of standardization in performance of the semen analysis among laboratories in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2002; 78: 603-8.). A survey involving thirty-seven laboratories in the UK about the methods used to assess sperm morphology revealed that only 5% complied with all WHO guidelines (3838 . Riddell D, Pacey A, Whittington K: Lack of compliance by UK andrology laboratories with World Health Organization recommendations for sperm morphology assessment. Hum Reprod. 2005; 20: 3441-5.). In the aforementioned study, participating laboratories had high inter-observer variability when evaluating the same specimen. These data were corroborated by another study in which interlaboratory coefficient of variation was as high as 34% for sperm concentration, 20% for total sperm motility, 40% for sperm vitality, and 70% for sperm morphology (strict criteria) (3939 . Alvarez C, Castilla JA, Ramírez JP, Vergara F, Yoldi A, Fernández A, et al.: External quality control program for semen analysis: Spanish experience. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2005; 22: 379-87.). Discrepancies were also seen in laboratories enrolled in quality control programs, thus indicating that there is a need of global standardization among the laboratories and the providers of external quality control (4040 . 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: 306-11.).
Owed to its complex nature, semen analysis should ideally be carried out in a dedicated Andrology laboratory attired with experienced technicians, internal and external quality control, validation of test systems, quality assurance during all testing processes, and proper in place communication with clinicians and patients (4141 . Esteves SC, Agarwal A: Ensuring that reproductive laboratories provide high-quality services. In: Bento FC, Esteves SC, Agarwal A, (ed), Quality Management in ART Clinics: A Practical Guide.1st ed. New York, NY: Springer US. 2013; 129-46.). Despite being nonspecific for identifying male factor infertility etiologies, semen analysis is often the gateway test from which multiple expensive and often invasive treatments are based. Therefore, the importance of a reliable Andrology laboratory cannot be underestimated.
The 2010 WHO Criteria for Semen Analysis
The WHO department of reproductive health and research workgroup made important changes in the 2010 laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction (44 . World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2010; pp. 271.). While the WHO workgroup reviewed and updated in great detail all the methods delineated in previous manuals it incorporated new protocols and tests. One of its main features was the inclusion of new references ranges and limits that were markedly lower than those reported in previous manuals.
Data characterizing the semen quality of fertile men provided the reference
ranges for the manual (4242 . 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: 231-45.). For the
first time, semen analysis results from recent fathers with known
time-to-pregnancy (TTP), defined as months (or cycles) from stopping
contraception to achieving a pregnancy, were analyzed. Raw data obtained
from five studies of seven countries on three continents were pooled then
assessed (4343 . Stewart TM, Liu DY, Garrett C, Jørgensen 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.
44 . Slama R, Eustache F, Ducot B, Jensen TK, Jørgensen 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.
45 . 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.
46 . 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.
47 . Haugen TB, Egeland T, Magnus O: Semen parameters in Norwegian
fertile men. J Androl. 2006; 27: 66-71.-4848 . Auger J, Eustache F, Andersen AG, Irvine DS, Jørgensen 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.). Approximately 1,900 men who had fathered a child
within one year of trying to initiate a pregnancy provided each one semen
sample for sperm counts, motility and volume assessments. Data on sperm
morphology were extracted from four studies comprising approximately 1,800
men whereas sperm vitality, assessed by the eosin-nigrosin method was
obtained from approximately 400 men of two countries (4343 . Stewart TM, Liu DY, Garrett C, Jørgensen 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.,4545 . 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.,4747 . Haugen TB, Egeland T, Magnus O: Semen parameters in Norwegian
fertile men. J Androl. 2006; 27: 66-71.,4848 . Auger J, Eustache F, Andersen AG, Irvine DS, Jørgensen 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.). The mean (± SD) male age was 31 (± 5) years (range 18-53)
and only ten men were over 45 years old. Participating laboratories
practiced internal and external quality control and used standardized
methods for semen analysis according to the WHO manual for the examination
of human semen current at the time of the original studies (4242 . 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: 231-45.).
The 95% interval for sperm volume, count, motility, vitality, and morphology
were generated, and the fifth centile was proposed as the lower cutoff
limits (4242 . 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: 231-45.). Of note, although the
fifth centile was considered as a reference limit for ‘normality’, it merely
represented an arbitrarily chosen distribution point commonly used in
clinical chemistry. It was then assumed that values below these limits would
come from a different population. The assessment of progressive motility
according to grades, as recommended by the previous WHO manuals, was
replaced by categorizing motile sperm as being ‘progressive’ or
‘non-progressive’. In addition, the strict criteria for morphology
assessment was incorporated at last as the standard method. The lower limits
of these distributions were lower than the values presented in previous
editions except for the total sperm number per ejaculate (11 . World Health Organization: WHO Laboratory Manual for the
Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-cervical Mucus Interaction, 2nd ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987; pp. 80.
2 . World Health Organization. WHO Laboratory Manual for the
Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-cervical Mucus Interaction, 3rd ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992; pp. 107.
3 . World Health Organization. WHO Laboratory Manual for the
Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-cervical Mucus Interaction, 4th ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999; pp. 128.-44 . World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the
examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Geneva: World Health
Organization. 2010; pp. 271.). Leukocyte reference values (< 1x106/mL) were
not determined and remained the same as in previous manuals.
In the 2010 WHO manual, the nomenclature to describe deviations from reference values, using words rather than numbers, remained the same as in previous manuals.
Controversies Surrounding the Validity of the 2010 WHO Thresholds
The lower reference limits in the 2010 WHO manual aimed to provide evidence-based thresholds that may aid clinicians in estimating the relative fertility of a given patient. Besides the aforesaid limitations of routine semen analysis in evaluating the male reproductive potential, methodological concerns arise from a careful examination of the studies that generated the current reference values. In a recent review, we critically analyzed these issues and concluded that it was unsound to assume that the 2010 reference standards represented the distribution of fertile men across the globe (66 . Esteves SC, Zini A, Aziz N, Alvarez JG, Sabanegh ES Jr, 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: 16-22.). The group of studied men represented a limited population of individuals who lived in large cities in the North hemisphere but for a small subset of men from Australia. Of note it was the absence of men from densely populated areas in Asia, Middle East, Latin America and Africa, which represent the areas where most men live nowadays. This fact precludes the examination of regional and racial discrepancies that could account for semen quality variability. The selection criteria were arbitrary as stated by Cooper et al. ‘laboratories and data were identified through the known literature and personal communication with investigators and the editorial group of the fifth edition of the WHO laboratory manual’ (4242 . 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: 231-45.). Not surprisingly, there was a significant overlap of authorship in the included studies. In addition, a single semen specimen of each man was included for the pooled analysis, thus limiting the appraisal of the already discussed large intra-individual biological variability (66 . Esteves SC, Zini A, Aziz N, Alvarez JG, Sabanegh ES Jr, 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: 16-22.).
Some authors have claimed that the lowered 2010 WHO thresholds are resulting
from the declines in sperm count caused by endocrine disruptors and other
environmental pollutants, such as insecticides, and pesticides (4949 . Handelsman DJ: Estrogens and falling sperm counts. Reprod Fertil
Dev. 2001; 13: 317-24.
50 . 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.-5151 . Carlsen E, Giwercman A, Keiding N, Skakkebaek NE: Evidence for
decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years. BMJ. 1992 12; 305:
609-13.). I, otherwise, conjecture that the observed discrepancies
are likely to be associated with the patient selection criteria, the higher
laboratory quality control standards and the methods used for semen
assessment, such as the strict criteria for morphology determination. It
means that methodology issues related to data generation might explain the
discrepancies in the reference thresholds among WHO guidelines (5252 . Cocuzza M, Esteves SC: Shedding Light on the Controversy
Surrounding the Temporal Decline in Human Sperm Counts: A Systematic Review.
Scientific World Journal. 2014; 2014: 365691.).
Collectively, these findings cast to doubt on the validity of the proposed reference range and cutoff limits about universally represent the distribution of semen results of fertile men.
Impact of the 2010 WHO Criteria for Semen Analysis in the Management of Male Infertility
Clinicians involved in the care of infertile couples still rely on the semen analysis results to determine a management plan. Semen parameters outside reference limits are taken into account not only to define male infertility but also to recommend further evaluation and treatment. One example is unexplained infertility which is based on the absence of female infertility, and the presence of at least two normal semen analysis and no identifiable causes after a thorough work-up including history, physical examination, and endocrine laboratory testing (2424 . Hamada A, Esteves SC, Nizza M, Agarwal A: Unexplained male infertility: diagnosis and management. Int Braz J Urol. 2012; 38: 576-94.). The adoption of the new WHO reference values will likely lead to more men being classified as “fertile,” which is of particular importance for gynecologists who rely on semen analysis alone as a surrogate measure for male fertility. In a recent study up to 15% of men with at least one parameter below the 1999 WHO reference values were reclassified as ‘‘normal’’ by having all parameters at or above the 2010 WHO thresholds (88 . 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: 1428-31.). We have also contemplated our own data involving 982 men seeking evaluation for infertility that had abnormal semen analysis results based on the 1990 WHO criteria. We found that approximately 39% of these men would be reclassified as “normal” by the new 2010 criteria. Morphology itself accounted for over 50% of the reclassifications (unpublished data). Patient referral for evaluation could then be postponed or not undertaken if fertility status would be based on semen analyses alone. Albeit it is ambiguous yet whether this re-classification will lead to a more cost-effective evaluation, it is also possible that it could delay the definitive diagnosis and management of the infertile couple and lead to a more pronounced infertility condition with ageing.
The current guidelines for male infertility evaluation also rely on the
concept of semen abnormality for patient management. The American Urological
Association (AUA) defines that the initial male evaluation should include a
reproductive history and two properly performed semen analyses, and that an
extended evaluation is warranted in the presence of semen abnormalities in
the initial evaluation (5353 . American Urological Association: The Optimal Evaluation of the
Infertile Male: AUA Best Practice Statement [revised 2010]. Available from:
http://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/education/clinical-guidance/Male-Infertility-d.pdf
[Cited October 5, 2013].
http://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/educati...
). In
contrast, the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommends undertaking a
male examination in individuals with abnormal semen analysis results (5454 . European Association of Urology: Guidelines on Male Infertility
2010. Available from:
http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/Male%20Infertility%202010.pdf. [Cited October 5,
2013].
http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/Male%20Inf...
). Surprisingly, a single seminal
evaluation would then be sufficient if the semen analysis results were
normal according to the EAU. These recommendations understate the
limitations of the semen analysis results and do not discuss the paradigm
shift that is likely to occur in referrals and management on the face of the
recent changes in the WHO reference thresholds.
Similarly, the recommendation for treatment has also been based on the
results of routine semen analysis. Current guidelines for varicocele propose
that treatment should be offered to men with clinical varicoceles in the
presence of abnormal semen analyses (5555 . 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.
56 . 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.
57 . Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia & Colégio Brasileiro de
Radiologia; Projeto Diretrizes da Associação Médica Brasileira: Varicocele.
Available from: http://www.projetodiretrizes.org.br/8_volume/40-Varicocele.pdf
[Cited October 5, 2013].
http://www.projetodiretrizes.org.br/8_vo...
-5858 . Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine:
Report on varicocele and infertility.Fertil Steril. 2008; 90:
S247-9.). Application of
the new WHO reference values might lead to patients earlier deemed to be
candidates for varicocele repair now be considered ineligible for treatment
if their semen parameters are above the fifth centile. This may create a
situation where health care providers might not reimburse treatment if semen
parameters were above the new thresholds. As stated by Esteves et al. ‘the
concern is that by denying these men a varicocele repair we may prevent them
from achieving a substantial improvement in semen parameters and a greater
chance of spontaneous pregnancy’. Of note, the most recent Practice
Committee report on varicocele by the American Society for Reproductive
Medicine (ASRM) acknowledged the limitations of routine semen analysis and
included the presence of an abnormal sperm function test as an indication
for treatment (5858 . Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine:
Report on varicocele and infertility.Fertil Steril. 2008; 90:
S247-9.). Yet, another
example is sperm morphology results in which infertility specialists have
relied on to recommend treatment modalities owed to their relationship with
in vivo and in vitro fertilization (5959 . Kruger TF, Acosta AA, Simmons KF, Swanson RJ, Matta JF, Oehninger
S: Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in in vitro fertilization.
Fertil Steril. 1988; 49: 112-7.). The thresholds of sperm morphology (strict criteria;
Tygerberg method) were lowered to 4% in the 2010 WHO criteria compared with
14% in the previous 1999 standards (33 . World Health Organization. WHO Laboratory Manual for the
Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-cervical Mucus Interaction, 4th ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999; pp. 128.,44 . World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the
examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Geneva: World Health
Organization. 2010; pp. 271.). Infertility
specialists recommend intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) instead of
conventional IVF or intrauterine insemination (IUI) on the face of
morphology results of below 4% owed to the markedly lower pregnancy outcomes
of these two treatment methods when using semen with low proportion of
normal sperm (6060 . Coetzee K, Kruge TF, Lombard CJ: Predictive value of normal sperm
morphology: a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update. 1998; 4:
73-82.,6161 . 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.). Interestingly, the distribution of
semen analysis results of fertile men in centiles, as shown by the new WHO
standards, clearly shows that though 5% of the studied men had morphology
values below the 4% cutoff point they still could initiate an unassisted
pregnancy within twelve months of unprotected intercourse (66 . Esteves SC, Zini A, Aziz N, Alvarez JG, Sabanegh ES Jr, 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: 16-22.,4242 . 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: 231-45.).
In summary, these considerations raise the question on how the 2010 WHO references thresholds would affect the current male infertility practice. It should be noted however, that reference values, as proposed by the WHO, merely represent the distribution of semen parameters of a limited group of recent fathers. Physicians treating infertile couples should exercise circumspection when interpreting the results of routine semen analysis. Semen analysis alone is only a tool among several others for determining clinical care. The male infertility evaluation must go far beyond a simple semen analysis, as it has to be complemented with a proper physical examination, a comprehensive history taking, and relevant endocrine, genetic, and other investigations (1010 . Esteves SC, Hamada A, Kondray V, Pitchika A, Agarwal A: What every gynecologist should know about male infertility: an update. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012; 286: 217-29.,1111 . Esteves SC, Miyaoka R, Agarwal A: An update on the clinical assessment of the infertile male. [corrected]. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011; 66: 691-700. Erratum in: Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012; 67: 203.).
A Proposal of a New Template for Semen Analysis Report
Semen analysis reports usually present the specimen data and include the cutoff limits as a reference for interpretation (6262 . World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2010; Appendix 6. pp. 252.). Despite having updated to the 2010 WHO criteria, our Andrology laboratory has changed the way results are reported. We have included the 95% reference interval of the semen characteristics from recent fathers, as generated by the WHO workgroup, instead of only providing the lower reference limits.
The reason why we have included the 95% reference interval was because we believe it is clinically useful to determine in which centile the patient specimen fits in comparison with the reference standards instead of simply classify the specimen as ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’. This approach would be more realistic and clinicians would have a better understanding of the patient’s seminal profile by comparing the specimen results with the reference group. I therefore propose that laboratories willing to adopt the 2010 WHO references include the full reference interval, as presented in Figure-1.
Modified semen analysis report template. The main difference between the routinely used templates and this one is the inclusion of the ‘centile’ distribution of semen characteristics from the reference population rather than solely the lower thresholds. The patient values (left column) are then compared with the reference limits thus aiding the clinician to appreciate how a given patient seminal profile fits within the centile distribution.
Our laboratory has also abandoned nomenclature; i.e., using words such as ‘oligozoospermia’, ‘asthenozoospermia’, ‘teratozoospermia’, etc., to describe deviations from reference limits. We think it is unsound to use such terminology for several reasons. First, these definitions are confusing. For instance, clinicians erroneously have used oligospermia and oligozoospermia as synonymous. While the former refers to ‘volume’, the latter refers to ‘number’. ‘Second, owed to the changes in the reference values according to the WHO manual edition, patients formerly classified as having oligozoospermia (sperm count less than the reference value) could now fall within the accepted reference limits. Such labeling poses a problem for researchers and clinicians who might erroneously interpret that the seminal profile has changed because of a given intervention. Lastly, nomenclature cannot determine the magnitude of the effect, and as a remedy other words such as ‘mild’, ‘severe’, and ‘moderate’ have been introduced as qualifiers. Our opinion is that semen results should be reported numerically to allow proper temporal comparison among analyses of same individuals, as well as comparison across different studies irrespective of the time they have been published.
CONCLUSIONS
The 2010 WHO semen analysis criteria are likely to have a significant effect on the management of male infertility, including reclassification of ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ semen analyses reports, deferment of patient referral for proper evaluation and recommendation for treatment. These new reference limits were derived from a limited number of semen samples used to initiate natural conceptions. Albeit values below the thresholds may indicate a need for infertility treatment they cannot be used to determine the nature of that treatment. Several methodological shortcomings are associated with the new references standards that might explain why references were lowered in comparison with previous WHO guidelines. Semen parameters within the reference interval do not guarantee fertility nor do values outside those limits necessarily imply male infertility or pathology. Physicians treating infertile couples should exercise circumspection when interpreting the results of routine semen analysis. Semen analysis alone is usually insufficient for the diagnosis because it does not account for sperm dysfunction, such as immature chromatin, oxidative stress and DNA damage. Semen quality must be interpreted within the context of the patient’s clinical information. The male infertility evaluation must go far beyond a simple semen analysis, as it has to be complemented with a proper physical examination, a comprehensive history taking, and relevant endocrine, genetic, and other investigations.
REFERENCES
-
1World Health Organization: WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-cervical Mucus Interaction, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987; pp. 80.
-
2World Health Organization. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-cervical Mucus Interaction, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992; pp. 107.
-
3World Health Organization. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-cervical Mucus Interaction, 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999; pp. 128.
-
4World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2010; pp. 271.
-
5Barratt 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.
-
6Esteves SC, Zini A, Aziz N, Alvarez JG, Sabanegh ES Jr, 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: 16-22.
-
7Haidl G: New WHO-reference limits-revolution or storm in a teapot? Asian J Androl. 2011; 13: 208-11.
-
8Murray 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: 1428-31.
-
9Yerram N, Sandlow JI, Brannigan RE: Clinical implications of the new 2010 WHO reference ranges for human semen characteristics. J Androl. 2012; 33: 289-90.
-
10Esteves SC, Hamada A, Kondray V, Pitchika A, Agarwal A: What every gynecologist should know about male infertility: an update. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012; 286: 217-29.
-
11Esteves SC, Miyaoka R, Agarwal A: An update on the clinical assessment of the infertile male. [corrected]. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011; 66: 691-700. Erratum in: Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2012; 67: 203.
-
12Guzick 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 8; 345: 1388-93.
-
13Moghissi KS, Wallach EE: Unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril. 1983; 39: 5-21.
-
14van der Steeg JW, Steures P, Eijkemans MJ, F Habbema JD, Hompes PG, Kremer JA, et al.: Role of semen analysis in subfertile couples. Fertil Steril. 2011 1; 95: 1013-9.
-
15Alvarez C, Castilla JA, Martínez L, Ramírez JP, Vergara F, Gaforio JJ: Biological variation of seminal parameters in healthy subjects. Hum Reprod. 2003; 18: 2082-8.
-
16Castilla JA, Alvarez C, Aguilar J, González-Varea C, Gonzalvo MC, Martínez L: Influence of analytical and biological variation on the clinical interpretation of seminal parameters. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21: 847-51.
-
17Keel BA: Within- and between-subject variation in semen parameters in infertile men and normal semen donors. Fertil Steril. 2006; 85: 128-34.
-
18Poland ML, Moghissi KS, Giblin PT, Ager JW, Olson JM: Variation of semen measures within normal men. Fertil Steril. 1985; 44: 396-400.
-
19Jequier AM: Is quality assurance in semen analysis still really necessary? A clinician’s viewpoint. Hum Reprod. 2005; 20: 2039-42.
-
20Baker HW, Kovacs GT: Spontaneous improvement in semen quality: regression towards the mean. Int J Androl. 1985; 8: 421-6.
-
21Berman NG, Wang C, Paulsen CA: Methodological issues in the analysis of human sperm concentration data. J Androl. 1996; 17: 68-73.
-
22Carlsen E, Petersen JH, Andersson AM, Skakkebaek NE: Effects of ejaculatory frequency and season on variations in semen quality. Fertil Steril. 2004; 82: 358-66.
-
23Sánchez-Pozo MC, Mendiola J, Serrano M, Mozas J, Björndahl L, Menkveld R, et al.: Proposal of guidelines for the appraisal of SEMen QUAlity studies (SEMQUA). Hum Reprod. 2013; 28: 10-21.
-
24Hamada A, Esteves SC, Nizza M, Agarwal A: Unexplained male infertility: diagnosis and management. Int Braz J Urol. 2012; 38: 576-94.
-
25Samplaski MK, Agarwal A, Sharma R, Sabanegh E: New generation of diagnostic tests for infertility: review of specialized semen tests. Int J Urol. 2010; 17: 839-47. Erratum in: Int J Urol. 2011; 18: 262.
-
26Kovac JR, Pastuszak AW, Lamb DJ: The use of genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics in identifying biomarkers of male infertility. Fertil Steril. 2013 15; 99: 998-1007.
-
27Sullivan EA, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, Ishihara O, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG, et al.: International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) world report: assisted reproductive technology 2004. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28: 1375-90.
-
28Agarwal A, Makker K, Sharma R: Clinical relevance of oxidative stress in male factor infertility: an update. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2008; 59: 2-11.
-
29Esteves SC, Agarwal A: Novel concepts in male infertility. Int Braz J Urol. 2011; 37: 5-15.
-
30Ashwood-Smith MJ, Edwards RG: DNA repair by oocytes. Mol Hum Reprod. 1996; 2: 46-51.
-
31Kodama H, Yamaguchi R, Fukuda J, Kasai H, Tanaka T: Increased oxidative deoxyribonucleic acid damage in the spermatozoa of infertile male patients. Fertil Steril. 1997; 68: 519-24.
-
32Spanò M, Bonde JP, Hjøllund HI, Kolstad HA, Cordelli E, Leter G: Sperm chromatin damage impairs human fertility. The Danish First Pregnancy Planner Study Team. Fertil Steril. 2000; 73: 43-50.
-
33Zini 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.
-
34Agarwal A, Zini A, Sigman M: Is sperm DNA integrity assessment useful? J Urol. 2013; 190: 1645-7.
-
35Zini A, Sigman M: Are tests of sperm DNA damage clinically useful? Pros and cons. J Androl. 2009; 30: 219-29.
-
36Snow-Lisy D, Sabanegh E Jr.: What does the clinician need from an andrology laboratory? Front Biosci (Elite Ed). 2013; 5: 289-304.
-
37Keel BA, Stembridge TW, Pineda G, Serafy NT Sr.: Lack of standardization in performance of the semen analysis among laboratories in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2002; 78: 603-8.
-
38Riddell D, Pacey A, Whittington K: Lack of compliance by UK andrology laboratories with World Health Organization recommendations for sperm morphology assessment. Hum Reprod. 2005; 20: 3441-5.
-
39Alvarez C, Castilla JA, Ramírez JP, Vergara F, Yoldi A, Fernández A, et al.: External quality control program for semen analysis: Spanish experience. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2005; 22: 379-87.
-
40Cooper 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: 306-11.
-
41Esteves SC, Agarwal A: Ensuring that reproductive laboratories provide high-quality services. In: Bento FC, Esteves SC, Agarwal A, (ed), Quality Management in ART Clinics: A Practical Guide.1st ed. New York, NY: Springer US. 2013; 129-46.
-
42Cooper 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: 231-45.
-
43Stewart TM, Liu DY, Garrett C, Jørgensen 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.
-
44Slama R, Eustache F, Ducot B, Jensen TK, Jørgensen 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.
-
45Swan 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.
-
46Jensen 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.
-
47Haugen TB, Egeland T, Magnus O: Semen parameters in Norwegian fertile men. J Androl. 2006; 27: 66-71.
-
48Auger J, Eustache F, Andersen AG, Irvine DS, Jørgensen 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.
-
49Handelsman DJ: Estrogens and falling sperm counts. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2001; 13: 317-24.
-
50Sadeu 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.
-
51Carlsen E, Giwercman A, Keiding N, Skakkebaek NE: Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years. BMJ. 1992 12; 305: 609-13.
-
52Cocuzza M, Esteves SC: Shedding Light on the Controversy Surrounding the Temporal Decline in Human Sperm Counts: A Systematic Review. Scientific World Journal. 2014; 2014: 365691.
-
53American Urological Association: The Optimal Evaluation of the Infertile Male: AUA Best Practice Statement [revised 2010]. Available from: http://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/education/clinical-guidance/Male-Infertility-d.pdf [Cited October 5, 2013].
» http://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/education/clinical-guidance/Male-Infertility-d.pdf -
54European Association of Urology: Guidelines on Male Infertility 2010. Available from: http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/Male%20Infertility%202010.pdf. [Cited October 5, 2013].
» http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/Male%20Infertility%202010.pdf -
55Male 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.
-
56Dohle 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.
-
57Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia & Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia; Projeto Diretrizes da Associação Médica Brasileira: Varicocele. Available from: http://www.projetodiretrizes.org.br/8_volume/40-Varicocele.pdf [Cited October 5, 2013].
» http://www.projetodiretrizes.org.br/8_volume/40-Varicocele.pdf -
58Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine: Report on varicocele and infertility.Fertil Steril. 2008; 90: S247-9.
-
59Kruger TF, Acosta AA, Simmons KF, Swanson RJ, Matta JF, Oehninger S: Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1988; 49: 112-7.
-
60Coetzee K, Kruge TF, Lombard CJ: Predictive value of normal sperm morphology: a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update. 1998; 4: 73-82.
-
61Van 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.
-
62World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2010; Appendix 6. pp. 252.
Publication Dates
-
Publication in this collection
Jul-Aug 2014
History
-
Received
16 Nov 2013 -
Accepted
19 Feb 2014