2. The Male Factor in Infertility

1982 ◽  
pp. 37-55
Keyword(s):  
Male Factor

Men's perception and understanding of male-factor infertility in the UK

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (9) ◽  
pp. S8-S16
Author(s):  
Eleanor L Stevenson ◽  
Cheng Ching-Yu ◽  
Chang Chia-Hao ◽  
Kevin R McEleny
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emotional Support ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Male Fertility ◽  
Public Knowledge ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Male Factor Infertility ◽  
Male Factor ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Uk

Male-factor infertility is a common but stigmatised issue, and men often do not receive the emotional support and the information they need. This study sought to understand awareness of male fertility issues compared to female fertility among the UK general male public, and also what were perceived as being the optimum methods for providing support for affected men, emotionally and through information. Men feel that male infertility is not discussed by the public as much as female infertility. Lifestyle issues that affect male fertility are not well understood, and men affected by infertility desire more support, including online, from health professionals and through peer support. Health professionals, including those in public health, could offer evidence-based programmes to reduce stigma and increase public knowledge about infertility, as well as offer emotional support to men with infertility problems.

scholarly journals The causes of infertility in women presenting to gynaecology clinics in Harare, Zimbabwe; a cross sectional study

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mugove G. Madziyire ◽  
Thulani L. Magwali ◽  
Vasco Chikwasha ◽  
Tinovimba Mhlanga
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Reproduction ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Male Factor ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Unprotected Sexual Intercourse ◽  
Assisted Reproduction Techniques ◽  
Public Facilities ◽  
Tubal Blockage ◽  
Private And Public

Abstract Background Infertility affects 48.5 million couples globally. It is defined clinically as failure to conceive after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse. The contribution of various aetiological factors to infertility differs per population. The causes of infertility have not been assessed in Zimbabwe. Our objectives were to determine the reproductive characteristics, causes and outcomes of women presenting for infertility care. Methods A retrospective and prospective study of women who had not conceived within a year of having unprotected intercourse presenting in private and public facilities in Harare was done. A diagnosis was made based on the history, examination and results whenever these were deemed sufficient. Data was analysed using STATA SE/15. A total of 216 women were recruited. Results Of the 216 women recruited, two thirds (144) of them had primary infertility. The overall period of infertility ranged from 1 to 21 years with an average of 5.6 ± 4.7 years whilst 98 (45.4%) of the couples had experienced 2–4 years of infertility and 94 (43.5%) had experience 5 or more years of infertility. About 1 in 5 of the women had irregular menstrual cycles with 10 of them having experienced amenorrhoea of at least 1 year. Almost half of the participants (49%) were overweight or obese. The most common cause for infertility was ‘unexplained’ in 22% of the women followed by tubal blockage in 20%, male factor in 19% and anovulation in 16%. Of the 49 (22.7%) women who conceived 21(9.7%) had a live birth while 23 (10.7%) had an ongoing pregnancy at the end of follow up. Thirty-seven (17.1%) had Assisted Reproduction Techniques (ART) in the form of Invitro-fertilisation/Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (IVF/ICSI) or Intra-Uterine Insemination (IUI). Assisted Reproduction was significantly associated with conception. Conclusion Most women present when chances of natural spontaneous conception are considerably reduced. This study shows an almost equal contribution between tubal blockage, male factor and unexplained infertility. Almost half of the causes are female factors constituted by tubal blockage, anovulation and a mixture of the two. Improved access to ART will result in improved pregnancy rates. Programs should target comprehensive assessment of both partners and offer ART.

scholarly journals Controlled ovarian stimulation should not be preferred for male infertility treated with intrauterine insemination: a retrospective study

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Tang ◽  
Qian-Dong He ◽  
Ting-Ting Zhang ◽  
Jing-Jing Wang ◽  
Si-Chong Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ectopic Pregnancy ◽  
Pregnancy Rate ◽  
Ovarian Stimulation ◽  
Intrauterine Insemination ◽  
Multiple Pregnancy ◽  
Clinical Pregnancy ◽  
Male Factor Infertility ◽  
Male Factor ◽  
Ovulatory Follicles ◽  
Multiple Pregnancy Rate

Abstract Background Some studies have stated that intrauterine insemination (IUI) with controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) might increase the pregnancy rate, while others suggest that IUI in the natural cycle (NC) should be the first line of treatment. It remains unclear whether it is necessary to use COS at the same time when IUI is applied to treat isolated male factor infertility. Thus, we aimed to investigate efficacy of IUI with COS for isolated male factor infertility. Methods A total of 601 IUI cycles from 307 couples who sought medical care for isolated male factor infertility between January 2010 and February 2020 were divided into two groups: NC-IUI and COS-IUI. The COS-IUI group was further divided into two subgroups according to the number of pre-ovulatory follicles on the day of HCG: cycles with monofollicular development (one follicle group) and cycles with at least two pre-ovulatory follicles (≥ 2 follicles group). The IUI outcomes, including clinical pregnancy, live birth, spontaneous abortion, ectopic pregnancy, and multiple pregnancy rates were compared. Results The clinical pregnancy, live birth, spontaneous abortion, and ectopic pregnancy rates were comparable between the NC-IUI and COS-IUI group. Similar results were also observed among the NC-IUI, one follicle, and ≥ 2 follicles groups. However, with respect to the multiple pregnancy rate, a trend toward higher multiple pregnancy rate was observed in the COS-IUI group compared to the NC-IUI group (8.7% vs. 0, P = 0.091), and a significant difference was found between the NC-IUI and ≥ 2 follicles group (0 vs. 16.7%, P = 0.033). Conclusion In COS cycles, especially in those with at least two pre-ovulatory follicles, the multiple pregnancy rate increased without a substantial gain in overall pregnancy rate; thus, COS should not be preferred in IUI for isolated male factor infertility. If COS is required, one stimulated follicle and one healthy baby should be the goal considering the safety of both mothers and foetuses.

scholarly journals Online access to male factor infertility care: the challenge of finding a specialist

F&S Reports ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-232
Author(s):  
Arighno Das ◽  
Anne Darves-Bornoz ◽  
Tejas Joshi ◽  
Mary Kate Keeter ◽  
James M. Wren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Male Factor Infertility ◽  
Male Factor ◽  
Online Access

Novel assay for determining DNA organization in human spermatozoa: implications for male factor infertility

Urology ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 575-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murali K Ankem ◽  
Eric Mayer ◽  
W.Steven Ward ◽  
Kenneth B Cummings ◽  
Joseph G Barone
Keyword(s):  
Human Spermatozoa ◽  
Male Factor Infertility ◽  
Male Factor ◽  
Dna Organization

scholarly journals In vitro fertilisation (IVF) versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in patients without severe male factor infertility: study protocol for the randomised, controlled, multicentre trial INVICSI

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e051058
Author(s):  
Sine Berntsen ◽  
Bugge Nøhr ◽  
Marie Louise Grøndahl ◽  
Morten Rønn Petersen ◽  
Lars Franch Andersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Male Partner ◽  
In Vitro Fertilisation ◽  
Male Factor Infertility ◽  
Male Factor ◽  
Fertilisation Rate ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionOver the last decades, the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has increased, even among patients without male factor infertility. The increase has happened even though there is no evidence to support that ICSI results in higher live birth rates compared with conventional in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in cases with nonmale factor infertility. The lack of robust evidence on an advantage of using ICSI over conventional IVF in these patients is problematic since ICSI is more invasive, complex and requires additional resources, time and effort. Therefore, the primary objective of the IVF versus ICSI (INVICSI) study is to determine whether ICSI is superior to standard IVF in patients without severe male factor infertility. The primary outcome measure is first live birth from fresh and frozen-thawed transfers after one stimulated cycle. Secondary outcomes include fertilisation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, birth weight and congenital anomalies.Methods and analysisThis is a two-armed, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. In total, 824 couples/women with infertility without severe male factor will be recruited and allocated randomly into two groups (IVF or ICSI) in a 1:1 ratio. Participants will be randomised in variable block sizes and stratified by trial site and age. The main inclusion criteria are (1) no prior IVF/ICSI treatment, (2) male partner sperm with an expected count of minimum 2 million progressive motile spermatozoa following density gradient purification on the day of oocyte pick up and (3) age of the woman between 18 and 42 years.Ethics and disseminationThe study will be performed in accordance with the ethical principles in the Helsinki Declaration. The study is approved by the Scientific Ethical Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark. Study findings will be presented, irrespectively of results at international conferences and submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04128904. Pre-results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document