S Paul1, S Harbottle, J A Stewart. 1. Newcastle Fertility Centre at Life, Bioscience Centre, International Centre for Life, Times Square, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 4EP, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The demand for sperm donors has continued despite the introduction of ICSI. This study was undertaken in the light of impending changes in donor anonymity laws to evaluate the recruitment process of sperm donors. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 1101 potential sperm donors in a tertiary referral centre between January 1994 and August 2003. The main outcome measures were to determine the demographic details, recruitment rate and reasons for rejection of donors. RESULTS: The majority of the applicants were aged <36 years (88.07%), students (54.88%), without a partner (53.47%), unmarried (85.38%) and without proven fecundity (78.67%). Only 3.63% of the applicants were released as donors, 30.79% defaulted, whilst 64.48% were rejected. The most common reason for rejection was suboptimal semen quality (85.07%). Over the years, the numbers of the applicants and released donors have declined significantly. The overall clinical pregnancy rate from donor sperm during this period was 23.52%. CONCLUSIONS: In this successful anonymous sperm donor programme only a small proportion of the applicants are released as donors. The significant decline in released sperm donors coupled with the potential effects of loss of donor anonymity means that new strategies for sperm donor recruitment are urgently required.
BACKGROUND: The demand for sperm donors has continued despite the introduction of ICSI. This study was undertaken in the light of impending changes in donor anonymity laws to evaluate the recruitment process of sperm donors. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 1101 potential sperm donors in a tertiary referral centre between January 1994 and August 2003. The main outcome measures were to determine the demographic details, recruitment rate and reasons for rejection of donors. RESULTS: The majority of the applicants were aged <36 years (88.07%), students (54.88%), without a partner (53.47%), unmarried (85.38%) and without proven fecundity (78.67%). Only 3.63% of the applicants were released as donors, 30.79% defaulted, whilst 64.48% were rejected. The most common reason for rejection was suboptimal semen quality (85.07%). Over the years, the numbers of the applicants and released donors have declined significantly. The overall clinical pregnancy rate from donor sperm during this period was 23.52%. CONCLUSIONS: In this successful anonymous sperm donor programme only a small proportion of the applicants are released as donors. The significant decline in released sperm donors coupled with the potential effects of loss of donor anonymity means that new strategies for sperm donor recruitment are urgently required.