Yedidya Hovav1, Miriam Almagor, Haim Yaffe. 1. Department of Obstetrics Gnecology, Bikur Cholim Hospital, Strauss 5, Jerusalem 91004, Israel. spl113@netvision.net.il
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electroejaculation has become an accepted form of semen procurement in men suffering from anejaculation. However, sperm in these ejaculates often exhibit low motility. The aetiology of asthenozoospermia remains uncertain. It may be related to primary low-grade motility of sperm from anejaculatory men or to detrimental effects of the electroejaculation process itself. The aim of this study was to determine whether the procedure of electroejaculation alters the quality of the semen by comparing the characteristics of the electroejaculates with those of the normal ejaculates of the same patients. METHODS: Nine men suffering from ejaculation disorders underwent 14 procedures of electroejaculation. The sperm concentration and motility of the 14 samples from electroejaculation were compared with 20 collected at a later date after successful ejaculation by the same patients. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD concentration of the electroejaculates was (52.3 +/- 42.1)x10(6)/ml and of the natural samples (67.4 +/- 38.1)x10(6)/ml. No statistical difference was found between the two groups. The mean percentage of sperm showing progressive motility following electroejaculation was 23.1 +/- 18.8% and 36.3 +/- 16.7% after spontaneous ejaculation. No statistical difference was found between the groups (P = 0.082). Likewise, the quality of sperm motility was similar after both methods of procurement. CONCLUSIONS: In our small-sized study group (nine men with ejaculation disorders), the concentration and the motility of sperm obtained by electroejaculation were not significantly different from sperm obtained naturally.
BACKGROUND: Electroejaculation has become an accepted form of semen procurement in men suffering from anejaculation. However, sperm in these ejaculates often exhibit low motility. The aetiology of asthenozoospermia remains uncertain. It may be related to primary low-grade motility of sperm from anejaculatory men or to detrimental effects of the electroejaculation process itself. The aim of this study was to determine whether the procedure of electroejaculation alters the quality of the semen by comparing the characteristics of the electroejaculates with those of the normal ejaculates of the same patients. METHODS: Nine men suffering from ejaculation disorders underwent 14 procedures of electroejaculation. The sperm concentration and motility of the 14 samples from electroejaculation were compared with 20 collected at a later date after successful ejaculation by the same patients. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD concentration of the electroejaculates was (52.3 +/- 42.1)x10(6)/ml and of the natural samples (67.4 +/- 38.1)x10(6)/ml. No statistical difference was found between the two groups. The mean percentage of sperm showing progressive motility following electroejaculation was 23.1 +/- 18.8% and 36.3 +/- 16.7% after spontaneous ejaculation. No statistical difference was found between the groups (P = 0.082). Likewise, the quality of sperm motility was similar after both methods of procurement. CONCLUSIONS: In our small-sized study group (nine men with ejaculation disorders), the concentration and the motility of sperm obtained by electroejaculation were not significantly different from sperm obtained naturally.