Amaç: Bu çalışmada farklı sperm sayılarına sahip erkeklerde sperm morfoloji ve motilite düzeylerini araştırmayı ve bu parametrelerin total sperm sayısı ile korelasyonunu incelemeyi amaçladık. Gereç ve yöntem: İnfertilite ünitesine başvuran 1174 erkeğin semen parametreleri Makler sayım kamarası kullanılarak incelendi. Morfolojik değerlendirme için strikt kriter (Kruger-Tyberg) kullanıldı. Total sperm sayısına göre hastalar üç gruba ayrıldı; grup I (n=119) < 5 milyon/mL, grup II (n=125) 5-15x106/mL, ve group III (n=930) ≥15x106/mL total sperm sayısına sahipti. Gruplar motilite, morfoloji ve yapısal sperm anormallikleri açısından karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Grup IIIe gore, grup I ve IIde sperm motilitesi anlamlı olarak daha düşüktü (p
Abstract Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in sperm morphology and motility in patients with different sperm counts, and to search the influence of sperm morphology over sperm motility. Materials and methods: We evaluated semen analysis of 1174 males admitted to infertility clinic using Makler counting camber for evaluation of number and motility, and strict criteria (Kruger-Tyberg) for the morphological assessment. According to total sperm count, patients were divided into three groups; group I (n=119) had <5x106/mL, group II (n=125) had 5-15x106/mL, and group III (n=930) had ≥15x106/mL total sperm count. The groups were compared in terms of motility, morphology and the distribution of sperm abnormalities. Results: Sperm motility was significantly lower in groups I-II compared to group III (p<0.01). In the semen analysis, normal sperm morphology above 4% was detected in 7.1% of group II, 17.5% of group III, and none in group I (p<0.01). Significantly less tail defects were detected in group III compared to others (p<0.01). Progressive sperm motility significantly correlated with morphology (r=0.38, p<0.001). Among morphologic abnormalities, tail problems were highly correlated with nonmotile sperm count (r=0.30, p<0.001). Tail defects correlated positively with midpiece (r=0.24, p<0.001), and negatively with head defects (r=-0.71, p<0.001). Normal sperm morphology had a negative relation with tail and midpiece defects (r=-0.20, p <0.001 and r=-0.30, p<0.001 respectively). Conclusion: Sperm motility and morphology were deteriorated with the decreasing sperm count in subfertile population. The chance of finding normal morphology above the critical value of 4% diminishes in cases with sperm counts less than 5x106 /mL. Therefore, it is logical to canalize these patients directly to assisted reproductive technologies.
1. Rodriguez-Martinez H. Laboratory semen assessment and prediction of fertility: still utopia? Reprod Domest Anim 2003;38:312318.
2. Bostofte E, Serup J, Rebbe H. Relation between morphologically abnormal spermatozoa and pregnancies obtained during a twenty-year follow-up period. Int J Androl 1982;5:379386.
3. Carrell DT, Zobell RL, Middleton RG, Urry RL. A functional analysis and the potential clinical significance of 7 categories of sperm morphology. J Urol 1994;151:376380.
4. Kruger TF, Acosta AA, Simmons KF, Swanson RJ, Matta JF, Oehninger S. Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1988;49:112117.
5. Leroy-Martin B, Tanguy B, Lorthioir M, Soulez B, Hermand E. Analysis of the results obtained in fertilization in vitro according to the degree and type of teratospermia. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 1994;23:373377.
6. Oettle EE. Sperm morphology and fertility in the dog. J Reprod Fertil Suppl 1993;47:257260.
7. Gil MC, García-Herreros M, Barón FJ, Aparicio IM, Santos AJ, García-Marín LJ. Morphometry of porcine spermatozoa and its functional significance in relation with the motility parameters in fresh semen. Theriogenology 2009;71:254263.
8. Pena FJ, Saravia F, Garcia-Herreros M, Nunez- martinez I, Tapia JA, Johannisson A, Wallgren M, Rodriguez-Martinez H. Identification of sperm morphometric subpopulations in two different portions of the boar ejaculate and its relation to postthaw quality. J Androl 2005;26:716 723.
9. World Health Organization, WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human sperm. Fifth edition 2010.
10. Coetzee K, Kruge TF, Lombard CJ. Predictive value of normal sperm morphology: a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update 1998;4:7382.
11. Kruger TF, Acosta AA, Simmons KF, Swanson RJ, Matta JF, Oehninger S. Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1988;49:112117.
12. Van Waart J, Kruger TF, Lombard CJ, Ombelet W. Predictive value of normal sperm morphology in intrauterine insemination (IUI): a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update 2001;7:495500.
13. Horvath PM, Bohrer M, Shelden RM, Kemmann E.The relationship of sperm parameters to cycle fecundity in superovulated women undergoing intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 1989;52:288294.
14. Dodson WC, Haney AF.Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination for treatment of infertility. Fertil Steril 1991;55:457467.
15. Huang HY, Lee CL, Lai YM, Chang MY, Wang HS, Chang SY, Soong YK.The impact of the total motile sperm count on the success of intrauterine insemination with husbands spermatozoa. J Assist Reprod Genet 1996;13:5663.
16. Aydos K, Ünlü C, Demirel C. Relation of the morphological alterations of spermatozoa with motility. J Turkish-German Gynecol Assoc 2000;1:58.