Continued existence of significant disparities in the technical practices of sperm morphology assessment and the clinical implications: results of a French questionnaire

Fertility and Sterility

Volumn 107, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 365-372.e3

  Gatimel, Nicolas ^a   Mansoux, Lucile ^a   Moreau, Jessika ^a   Parinaud, Jean ^a   Léandri, Roger D ^a  

^a Paul Sabatier University   (France)

Author keywords

Analytical reliability; clinical relevance; quality control; sperm morphology

Indexed keywords

ANDROLOGIST; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; E-MAIL; FRANCE; GYNECOLOGIST; HEALTH CARE DISPARITY; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HUMAN; INTRAUTERINE INSEMINATION; LABORATORY AUTOMATION; MALE; MALE INFERTILITY; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES; QUESTIONNAIRE; SPERM MORPHOLOGY ASSESSMENT; SPERMATOZOON ABNORMALITY; UROGENITAL TRACT DISEASE ASSESSMENT; CELL SHAPE; CONSENSUS; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROCEDURES; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SEMEN ANALYSIS; SPERMATOZOON; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT;

CELL SHAPE; CONSENSUS; FRANCE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HEALTHCARE DISPARITIES; HUMANS; MALE; PRACTICE PATTERNS, PHYSICIANS'; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEMEN ANALYSIS; SPERMATOZOA; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 85006986539     PISSN: 00150282     EISSN: 15565653     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.038     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. 1 Menkveld, R., Stander, F.S., Kotze, T.J., Kruger, T.F., van Zyl, J.A., The evaluation of morphological characteristics of human spermatozoa according to stricter criteria. Hum Reprod 5 (1990), 586–592.
2. 2 Franken, D.R., How accurate is sperm morphology as an indicator of sperm function?. Andrologia 47 (2015), 720–723.
3. 3 Liu, D.Y., Baker, H.W., Sperm nuclear chromatin normality: relationship with sperm morphology, sperm-zona pellucida binding, and fertilization rates in vitro. Fertil Steril 58 (1992), 1178–1184.
4. 4 Guzick, D.S., Overstreet, J.W., Factor-Litvak, P., Brazil, C.K., Nakajima, S.T., Coutifaris, C., et al. Sperm morphology, motility, and concentration in fertile and infertile men. N Engl J Med 345 (2001), 1388–1393.
5. 5 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 11 (1988), 379–394.
6. 6 Kruger, T.F., Acosta, A.A., Simmons, K.F., Swanson, R.J., Matta, J.F., Veeck, L.L., et al. New method of evaluating sperm morphology with predictive value for human in vitro fertilization. Urology 30 (1987), 248–251.
7. 7 Lemmens, L., Kos, S., Beijer, C., Brinkman, J.W., van der Horst, F.A., van den Hoven, L., et al. Predictive value of sperm morphology and progressively motile sperm count for pregnancy outcomes in intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 105 (2016), 1462–1468.
8. 8 Oehninger, S., Franken, D.R., Ombelet, W., Sperm functional tests. Fertil Steril 102 (2014), 1528–1533.
9. 9 Lockwood, G.M., Deveneau, N.E., Shridharani, A.N., Strawn, E.Y., Sandlow, J.I., Isolated abnormal strict morphology is not a contraindication for intrauterine insemination. Andrology 3 (2015), 1088–1093.
10. 10 Comhaire, F., Schoonjans, F., Vermeulen, L., De Clercq, N., Methodological aspects of sperm morphology evaluation: comparison between strict and liberal criteria. Fertil Steril 62 (1994), 857–861.
11. 11 Menkveld, R., Sperm morphology assessment using strict (Tygerberg) criteria. Methods Mol Biol 927 (2013), 39–50.
12. 12 Henkel, R., Schreiber, G., Sturmhoefel, A., Hipler, U.C., Zermann, D.H., Menkveld, R., Comparison of three staining methods for the morphological evaluation of human spermatozoa. Fertil Steril 89 (2008), 449–455.
13. 13 Franken, D.R., Menkveld, R., Kruger, T.F., Sekadde-Kigondu, C., Lombard, C., Monitoring technologist reading skills in a sperm morphology quality control program. Fertil Steril 79:Suppl 3 (2003), 1637–1643.
14. 14 Mallidis, C., Cooper, T.G., Hellenkemper, B., Lablans, M., Uckert, F., Nieschlag, E., Ten years' experience with an external quality control program for semen analysis. Fertil Steril 98 (2012), 611–616.e4.
15. 15 Eustache, F., Auger, J., Inter-individual variability in the morphological assessment of human sperm: effect of the level of experience and the use of standard methods. Hum Reprod 18 (2003), 1018–1022.
16. 16 Leushuis, E., van der Steeg, J.W., Steures, P., Repping, S., Bossuyt, P.M., Blankenstein, M.A., et al. Reproducibility and reliability of repeated semen analyses in male partners of subfertile couples. Fertil Steril 94 (2010), 2631–2635.
17. 17 Bonde, J.P., Ernst, E., Jensen, T.K., Hjollund, N.H., Kolstad, H., Henriksen, T.B., et al. Relation between semen quality and fertility: a population-based study of 430 first-pregnancy planners. Lancet 352 (1998), 1172–1177.
18. 18 Keel, B.A., Quinn, P., Schmidt, C.F. Jr., Serafy, N.T. Jr., Serafy, N.T. Sr., Schalue, T.K., Results of the American Association of Bioanalysts national proficiency testing programme in andrology. Hum Reprod 15 (2000), 680–686.
19. 19 Matson, P.L., External quality assessment for semen analysis and sperm antibody detection: results of a pilot scheme. Hum Reprod 10 (1995), 620–625.
20. 20 Ombelet, W., Bosmans, E., Janssen, M., Cox, A., Maes, M., Punjabi, U., et al. Multicenter study on reproducibility of sperm morphology assessments. Arch Androl 41 (1998), 103–114.
21. 21 Davis, R.O., Gravance, C.G., Standardization of specimen preparation, staining, and sampling methods improves automated sperm-head morphometry analysis. Fertil Steril 59 (1993), 412–417.
22. 22 Ombelet, W., Pollet, H., Bosmans, E., Vereecken, A., Results of a questionnaire on sperm morphology assessment. Hum Reprod 12 (1997), 1015–1020.
23. 23 Menkveld, R., Holleboom, C.A., Rhemrev, J.P., Measurement and significance of sperm morphology. Asian J Androl 13 (2011), 59–68.
24. 24 Eliasson, R., Semen analysis with regard to sperm number, sperm morphology and functional aspects. Asian J Androl 12 (2010), 26–32.
25. 25 Auger, J., Assessing human sperm morphology: top models, underdogs or biometrics?. Asian J Androl 12 (2010), 36–46.
26. 26 Mortimer, D., Menkveld, R., Sperm morphology assessment—historical perspectives and current opinions. J Androl 22 (2001), 192–205.
27. 27 Kruger, T.F., Ackerman, S.B., Simmons, K.F., Swanson, R.J., Brugo, S.S., Acosta, A.A., A quick, reliable staining technique for human sperm morphology. Arch Androl 18 (1987), 275–277.
28. 28 Menkveld, R., Lacquet, F.A., Kruger, T.F., Lombard, C.J., Sanchez Sarmiento, C.A., de Villiers, A., Effects of different staining and washing procedures on the results of human sperm morphology evaluation by manual and computerised methods. Andrologia 29 (1997), 1–7.
29. 29 Natali, I., Muratori, M., Sarli, V., Vannuccini, M., Cipriani, S., Niccoli, L., et al. Scoring human sperm morphology using Testsimplets and Diff-Quik slides. Fertil Steril 99 (2013), 1227–1232 e2.
30. 30 Menkveld, R., Kruger, T.F., Advantages of strict (Tygerberg) criteria for evaluation of sperm morphology. Int J Androl 18:Suppl 2 (1995), 36–42.
31. 31 Marnet, B., Vieitez, G., Milhet, P., Richoilley, G., Lesourd, F., Parinaud, J., Computer-assisted assessment of sperm morphology: comparison with conventional techniques. Int J Androl 23 (2000), 22–28.
32. 32 World Health Organization. Laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed., 2010, WHO, Geneva.
33. 33 Cooper, T.G., Noonan, E., von Eckardstein, S., Auger, J., Baker, H.W., Behre, H.M., et al. World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Hum Reprod Update 16 (2010), 231–245.
34. 34 Ombelet, W., Bosmans, E., Janssen, M., Cox, A., Vlasselaer, J., Gyselaers, W., et al. Semen parameters in a fertile versus subfertile population: a need for change in the interpretation of semen testing. Hum Reprod 12 (1997), 987–993.
35. 35 Menkveld, R., Wong, W.Y., Lombard, C.J., Wetzels, A.M., Thomas, C.M., Merkus, H.M., et al. Semen parameters, including WHO and strict criteria morphology, in a fertile and subfertile population: an effort towards standardization of in-vivo thresholds. Hum Reprod 16 (2001), 1165–1171.
36. 36 Auger, J., Jouannet, P., Eustache, F., Another look at human sperm morphology. Hum Reprod 31 (2016), 10–23.
37. 37 Wang, Y., Yang, J., Jia, Y., Xiong, C., Meng, T., Guan, H., et al. Variability in the morphologic assessment of human sperm: use of the strict criteria recommended by the World Health Organization in 2010. Fertil Steril 101 (2014), 945–949.
38. 38 Yao, K.S., Zhang, X.Z., Wu, Y., Assessment of sperm morphology without quality control may be meaningless for clinicians. Asian J Androl 12 (2010), 607–608.
39. 39 Franken, D.R., Kruger, T.F., Lessons learned from a sperm morphology quality control programme. Andrologia 38 (2006), 225–229.
40. 40 Slama, R., Eustache, F., Ducot, B., Jensen, T.K., 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 17 (2002), 503–515.
41. 41 Aziz, N., Sharma, R.K., Mahfouz, R., Jha, R., Agarwal, A., Association of sperm morphology and the sperm deformity index (SDI) with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) cleavage inhibition. Fertil Steril 95 (2011), 2481–2484.
42. 42 van Zyl, J.A., Menkveld, R., Oligozoospermia: recent prognosis and the outcome of 73 pregnancies in oligozoospermic couples. Andrologia 38 (2006), 87–91.
43. 43 Van Waart, J., Kruger, T.F., Lombard, C.J., Ombelet, W., Predictive value of normal sperm morphology in intrauterine insemination (IUI): a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update 7 (2001), 495–500.
44. 44 Comhaire, F., Zalata, A., Mahmoud, A., Depoorter, B., Huysse, L., Christophe, A., et al. Diagnostic and therapeutic approach to moderate and severe male subfertility in 1995. Hum Reprod 10:Suppl 1 (1995), 144–150.
45. 45 Francavilla, F., Romano, R., Santucci, R., Poccia, G., Effect of sperm morphology and motile sperm count on outcome of intrauterine insemination in oligozoospermia and/or asthenozoospermia. Fertil Steril 53 (1990), 892–897.
46. 46 Deveneau, N.E., Sinno, O., Krause, M., Eastwood, D., Sandlow, J.I., Robb, P., et al. Impact of sperm morphology on the likelihood of pregnancy after intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 102 (2014), 1584–1590.e2.
47. 47 Coetzee, K., Kruge, T.F., Lombard, C.J., Predictive value of normal sperm morphology: a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update 4 (1998), 73–82.
48. 48 Keegan, B.R., Barton, S., Sanchez, X., Berkeley, A.S., Krey, L.C., Grifo, J., Isolated teratozoospermia does not affect in vitro fertilization outcome and is not an indication for intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 88 (2007), 1583–1588.
49. 49 French, D.B., Sabanegh, E.S. Jr., Goldfarb, J., Desai, N., Does severe teratozoospermia affect blastocyst formation, live birth rate, and other clinical outcome parameters in ICSI cycles?. Fertil Steril 93 (2010), 1097–1103.
50. 50 Osawa, Y., Sueoka, K., Iwata, S., Shinohara, M., Kobayashi, N., Kuji, N., et al. Assessment of the dominant abnormal form is useful for predicting the outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the case of severe teratozoospermia. J Assist Reprod Genet 16 (1999), 436–442.
51. 51 Host, E., Lindenberg, S., Ernst, E., Christensen, F., Sperm morphology and IVF: embryo quality in relation to sperm morphology following the WHO and Kruger's strict criteria. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 78 (1999), 526–529.
52. 52 Hotaling, J.M., Smith, J.F., Rosen, M., Muller, C.H., Walsh, T.J., The relationship between isolated teratozoospermia and clinical pregnancy after in vitro fertilization with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 95 (2011), 1141–1145.
53. 53 Blanchard, M., Haguenoer, K., Apert, A., Poret, H., Barthelemy, C., Royere, D., et al. Sperm morphology assessment using David's classification: time to switch to strict criteria? Prospective comparative analysis in a selected IVF population. Int J Androl 34 (2011), 145–152.