Cargando…
Optimal timing for repeat semen analysis during male infertility evaluation
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the 4-week time period between semen analyses during the workup of male infertility is optimal and whether two samples are needed. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Tertiary hospital. PATIENT(S): Men whose semen samples were obtained within 90 days of each other, wit...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8267395/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34278350 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xfre.2021.04.010 |
_version_ | 1783720137473392640 |
---|---|
author | Punjani, Nahid Wald, Gal Al-Hussein Alwamlh, Omar Feliciano, Miriam Dudley, Vanessa Goldstein, Marc |
author_facet | Punjani, Nahid Wald, Gal Al-Hussein Alwamlh, Omar Feliciano, Miriam Dudley, Vanessa Goldstein, Marc |
author_sort | Punjani, Nahid |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the 4-week time period between semen analyses during the workup of male infertility is optimal and whether two samples are needed. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Tertiary hospital. PATIENT(S): Men whose semen samples were obtained within 90 days of each other, without known fertility intervention, treatment, and/or azoospermia. INTERVENTION(S): Semen analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Correlation between semen parameters and agreement among consecutive semen analyses. RESULT(S): A total of 2,150 semen samples from 1,075 men were included in the analysis. The optimal correlation for volume occurred at weeks 2, 8, and 12 (r = 0.803, r = 0.802, and r = 0.821, respectively). For concentration, the correlation was maximized at weeks 1, 4, and 5 (r = 0.950, r = 0.841, and r = 0.795, respectively). Total sperm count correlated at weeks 1, 2, and 4 (r = 0.929, r = 0.727, and r = 0.808, respectively). Motility was maximally correlated at weeks 1, 10, and 13 (r = 0.711, r = 0.760, and r = 0.708, respectively). Morphology was optimally correlated at weeks 1, 2, and 9 (r = 0.935, r = 0.815, and r = 0.839, respectively). Semen volume was correlated in 55% of men, sperm concentration in 64% of men, sperm motility in 52% of men and sperm morphology 64% of men. CONCLUSION(S): Our data suggest that four weeks may not be the optimal time for repeat semen analysis and that one sample is insufficient to assess any abnormalities in the result of semen analysis. The optimal time between repeat semen analyses should be individualized depending on the results of the initial analysis and additional factors, suggesting the need for future large-scale studies to investigate this trend. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8267395 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82673952021-07-16 Optimal timing for repeat semen analysis during male infertility evaluation Punjani, Nahid Wald, Gal Al-Hussein Alwamlh, Omar Feliciano, Miriam Dudley, Vanessa Goldstein, Marc F S Rep Original Article OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the 4-week time period between semen analyses during the workup of male infertility is optimal and whether two samples are needed. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Tertiary hospital. PATIENT(S): Men whose semen samples were obtained within 90 days of each other, without known fertility intervention, treatment, and/or azoospermia. INTERVENTION(S): Semen analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Correlation between semen parameters and agreement among consecutive semen analyses. RESULT(S): A total of 2,150 semen samples from 1,075 men were included in the analysis. The optimal correlation for volume occurred at weeks 2, 8, and 12 (r = 0.803, r = 0.802, and r = 0.821, respectively). For concentration, the correlation was maximized at weeks 1, 4, and 5 (r = 0.950, r = 0.841, and r = 0.795, respectively). Total sperm count correlated at weeks 1, 2, and 4 (r = 0.929, r = 0.727, and r = 0.808, respectively). Motility was maximally correlated at weeks 1, 10, and 13 (r = 0.711, r = 0.760, and r = 0.708, respectively). Morphology was optimally correlated at weeks 1, 2, and 9 (r = 0.935, r = 0.815, and r = 0.839, respectively). Semen volume was correlated in 55% of men, sperm concentration in 64% of men, sperm motility in 52% of men and sperm morphology 64% of men. CONCLUSION(S): Our data suggest that four weeks may not be the optimal time for repeat semen analysis and that one sample is insufficient to assess any abnormalities in the result of semen analysis. The optimal time between repeat semen analyses should be individualized depending on the results of the initial analysis and additional factors, suggesting the need for future large-scale studies to investigate this trend. Elsevier 2021-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8267395/ /pubmed/34278350 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xfre.2021.04.010 Text en © 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Article Punjani, Nahid Wald, Gal Al-Hussein Alwamlh, Omar Feliciano, Miriam Dudley, Vanessa Goldstein, Marc Optimal timing for repeat semen analysis during male infertility evaluation |
title | Optimal timing for repeat semen analysis during male infertility evaluation |
title_full | Optimal timing for repeat semen analysis during male infertility evaluation |
title_fullStr | Optimal timing for repeat semen analysis during male infertility evaluation |
title_full_unstemmed | Optimal timing for repeat semen analysis during male infertility evaluation |
title_short | Optimal timing for repeat semen analysis during male infertility evaluation |
title_sort | optimal timing for repeat semen analysis during male infertility evaluation |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8267395/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34278350 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xfre.2021.04.010 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT punjaninahid optimaltimingforrepeatsemenanalysisduringmaleinfertilityevaluation AT waldgal optimaltimingforrepeatsemenanalysisduringmaleinfertilityevaluation AT alhusseinalwamlhomar optimaltimingforrepeatsemenanalysisduringmaleinfertilityevaluation AT felicianomiriam optimaltimingforrepeatsemenanalysisduringmaleinfertilityevaluation AT dudleyvanessa optimaltimingforrepeatsemenanalysisduringmaleinfertilityevaluation AT goldsteinmarc optimaltimingforrepeatsemenanalysisduringmaleinfertilityevaluation |