Rachel B Danis1, Mary K Samplaski2. 1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, University of Southern California, 2020 Zonal Avenue, IRD 534, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. Rachel.danis@med.usc.edu. 2. Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, 1441 Eastlake Avenue, Suite 7416, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The classification of morphologically normal sperm has been progressively redefined. Concurrently, our understanding of the significance of sperm morphology in relation to male factor infertility has evolved. In this review, we will discuss the evolution of sperm morphology assessment and factors that contribute to its measurement variability. We will examine the impact of sperm morphology on natural pregnancy, IUI, IVF, and ICSI outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: There is a lack of consensus on sperm morphology classification, technique, and inter-observer grading variability. Current evidence suggests sperm morphology has low predictive value for pregnancy success, for both natural and assisted reproduction. Additionally, the threshold for what is considered an adequate percentage of morphologically normal sperm has changed over time. These variables have called into question the relevance of this variable in predicting fertility outcomes. Our understanding of the impact of sperm morphology on reproductive outcomes continues to evolve and seems to play less of a role than initially thought.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The classification of morphologically normal sperm has been progressively redefined. Concurrently, our understanding of the significance of sperm morphology in relation to male factor infertility has evolved. In this review, we will discuss the evolution of sperm morphology assessment and factors that contribute to its measurement variability. We will examine the impact of sperm morphology on natural pregnancy, IUI, IVF, and ICSI outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: There is a lack of consensus on sperm morphology classification, technique, and inter-observer grading variability. Current evidence suggests sperm morphology has low predictive value for pregnancy success, for both natural and assisted reproduction. Additionally, the threshold for what is considered an adequate percentage of morphologically normal sperm has changed over time. These variables have called into question the relevance of this variable in predicting fertility outcomes. Our understanding of the impact of sperm morphology on reproductive outcomes continues to evolve and seems to play less of a role than initially thought.
Authors: Laura Andolfi; Alice Battistella; Michele Zanetti; Marco Lazzarino; Lorella Pascolo; Federico Romano; Giuseppe Ricci Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Ashok Agarwal; Rakesh Sharma; Sajal Gupta; Renata Finelli; Neel Parekh; Manesh Kumar Panner Selvam; Ralf Henkel; Damayanthi Durairajanayagam; Camila Pompeu; Sarah Madani; Andrea Belo; Neha Singh; Simryn Covarrubias; Sara Darbandi; Raha Sadeghi; Mahsa Darbandi; Paraskevi Vogiatzi; Florence Boitrelle; Mara Simopoulou; Ramadan Saleh; Mohamed Arafa; Ahmad Majzoub; Hussein Kandil; Armand Zini; Edmund Ko; Juan G Alvarez; Marlon Martinez; Jonathan Ramsay; Sunil Jindal; Gian Maria Busetto; Hassan Sallam; Israel Maldonado; Christina Anagnostopoulou; Marco G Alves; Pallav Sengupta; Kambiz Gilany; Donald P Evenson; Sheena E M Lewis; Jaime Gosalvez; Rafael F Ambar; Rupin Shah Journal: World J Mens Health Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 6.494