Ido Feferkorn1, Guy Shrem2,3, Liat Azani4, Weon-Young Son2, Tamar Nehushtan4, Mali Salmon-Divon4,5, Michael Haim Dahan2. 1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, McGill University Health Care Center, 888 Boul. de Maisonneuve E #200, Montréal, QC, H2L 4S8, Canada. ido.feferkorn@mail.mcgill.ca. 2. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, McGill University Health Care Center, 888 Boul. de Maisonneuve E #200, Montréal, QC, H2L 4S8, Canada. 3. IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaplan Medical Center, 1 Derech Pasternak, Rehovot, Israel. 4. Department of Molecular Biology, Ariel University, 65 Ramat HaGolan St, Ariel, Israel. 5. Adelson School of Medicine, Ariel University, 65 Ramat HaGolan St, Ariel, Israel.
Abstract
PURPOSE: What is the trend in sperm parameters in a group of men attending a single reproductive center, over a 10-year period? METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 12,188 semen samples obtained from unique individuals who attended a university reproductive clinic from 2009 to 2018, inclusively. Semen analysis was done using computer-assisted sperm analysis and verified by an andrologist. Analysis was done after dividing the dataset into two groups: above WHO 2010 lower reference limits (ARL) (N = 6325) and below the reference limits (BRL) (N = 5521). RESULTS: Volume increased slightly (ARL, p = 0.049) before returning to baseline or was stable (BRL, p = 0.59). Sperm concentration and total count of the BRL and ARL group declined initially and then recovered slightly (p < 0.0001, in all cases). Although these changes were statistically significant, this was due to the large study population; clinically, these changes were quite mild and would not have been significant for fertility. Sperm total motility and progressive motility of both the BRL group and the ARL group increased slightly from 2009 until 2015 and then decreased back to baseline (p < 0.0001). This change offset the decrease in count seen in those years. A spurious change was observed with sperm morphology that declined after the first 2 years and remained stable thereafter (p < 0.0001, in both groups). However, this change was attributed to a contemporaneous change in the method of analyzing strict morphology which happened when the change occurred. CONCLUSION: While statistically significant changes were found, clinically, these changes were quite mild and would not have been significant for fertility.
PURPOSE: What is the trend in sperm parameters in a group of men attending a single reproductive center, over a 10-year period? METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 12,188 semen samples obtained from unique individuals who attended a university reproductive clinic from 2009 to 2018, inclusively. Semen analysis was done using computer-assisted sperm analysis and verified by an andrologist. Analysis was done after dividing the dataset into two groups: above WHO 2010 lower reference limits (ARL) (N = 6325) and below the reference limits (BRL) (N = 5521). RESULTS: Volume increased slightly (ARL, p = 0.049) before returning to baseline or was stable (BRL, p = 0.59). Sperm concentration and total count of the BRL and ARL group declined initially and then recovered slightly (p < 0.0001, in all cases). Although these changes were statistically significant, this was due to the large study population; clinically, these changes were quite mild and would not have been significant for fertility. Sperm total motility and progressive motility of both the BRL group and the ARL group increased slightly from 2009 until 2015 and then decreased back to baseline (p < 0.0001). This change offset the decrease in count seen in those years. A spurious change was observed with sperm morphology that declined after the first 2 years and remained stable thereafter (p < 0.0001, in both groups). However, this change was attributed to a contemporaneous change in the method of analyzing strict morphology which happened when the change occurred. CONCLUSION: While statistically significant changes were found, clinically, these changes were quite mild and would not have been significant for fertility.
Authors: L Priskorn; L Nordkap; A K Bang; M Krause; S A Holmboe; D L Egeberg Palme; S B Winge; N Mørup; E Carlsen; U N Joensen; M Blomberg Jensen; K M Main; A Juul; N E Skakkebaek; T K Jensen; N Jørgensen Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: J A M Hamilton; M Cissen; M Brandes; J M J Smeenk; J P de Bruin; J A M Kremer; W L D M Nelen; C J C M Hamilton Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Mali Salmon-Divon; Guy Shrem; Jacques Balayla; Tamar Nehushtan; Alexander Volodarsky-Perel; Naama Steiner; Weon-Young Son; Michael H Dahan Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Maya N Mascarenhas; Seth R Flaxman; Ties Boerma; Sheryl Vanderpoel; Gretchen A Stevens Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Nicolás David Ramírez; Andrea Tissera; Rosa Molina; Pablo Gaggino; Arnaldo Mangeaud; Ana Carolina Martini Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 3.357