Roshanak Aboutorabi Corresponding Author
- Anatomy Department, Faculty of Medicine, Isfahan Medical Sciences University, Isfahan, Iran
Zahra Fotoohi
- Shahid Beheshti Hospital, Isfahan, Iran
Mohammad Hossein Nasr-Esfahani
- Royan Institute, Isfahan, Iran
Bahram Soleimani
- Department of Epidemiology and Statistics, Faculty of Public Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Received: 1/1/2006 Accepted: 1/1/2006 - Publisher : Avicenna Research Institute

Related Articles


Other Format



Introduction: Defining the lowest normal values of semen parameters, which are required for fertility, is of utmost importance in the diagnosis and management of infertile couples. These values are defined periodically by W.H.O. However, it has been emphasized that semen parame-ters should be determined regionally or nationally. The objective of this study was to evaluate semen parameters in fertile couples in Isfahan. Materials & Methods: Semen samples were obtained from partners of 234 pregnant women referring to gynecologists throughout Isfahan. Questionnaires, including time to pregnancy (TTP), were filled out. Semen samples were analyzed according to WHO guidelines. Results were ana-lyzed and odds ratios were calculated by the use of SPSS statistical software and the level of significance was considered <.05%. Results: The 10% cut-off point for the values such as volume, density, total count, motility and normal morphology, being considered as the minimum requirement for fertility, were 1ml, 45×106 per ml, 75×106 per ejaculate, 57% and 28% respectively. Semen parameters with TTP of less than 6 months were grouped according to the mentioned cut-off points and the pregnancy ratio and re-lative risks of pregnancy were calculated for each group. The results showed no significant differ-rence between the relative risks for pregnancy with respect to the cut-off points. Conclusion: Due to lack of information on sperm parameters in different parts of the world, regional and national evaluations of these parameters is of great value for demographic studies. Genetic characteristics and regional climate as environment, may affect sperm parameters. Isfa-han, for example, is situated in a region with warm and dry climate and this may justify the low mean volume and higher concentration of sperm in the obtained samples from the subjects.

Keywords: Semen parameters, Time to pregnancy, Fertile couples, IUGR

To cite this article:


  1. Slama R., Eustache F., Ducot B. Time to pregnancy and semen parameters: a cross-sectional study among fertile couples from four European cities. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(2):503-515.
  2. Jorgensen N., Andersen A.G., Eustache F., Irvine D.S., Suominen J., Petersen J.H., et al. Regional differrences in semen quality in Europe. Hum Reprod.2001;16: 1012-1019.
  3. Auger J., Eustache F., Andersen A.G., Irvine D.S., Jorgensen N., Skakkebaek N.E., et al. Sperm morpho-logical defects related to environment, lifestyle and medical history of 1001 male partners of pregnant wo-men from four European cities. Hum Reprod.2001;16: 2710-2717.
  4. Menkveld R., Wong W.Y., Lombard C.J., Wetzels A. M., Thomas C.M., Merkus H.M., et al. Semen parame-ters, including WHO and strict criteria morphology, in a fertile and subfertile population: an effort towards standardization of in-vivo thresholds. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1165-1171.
  5. Juul S., Karmaus W., Olsen J. Regional differences in waiting time to pregnancy: pregnancy-based surveys from Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden. The European infertility and subfertility study group. Hum Reprod.1999;14:1250-1254.
  6. Macload J., Gold R. The male factor in fertility and in-fertility; Semen quality and certain other factors in re-lation to ease of conception. Fertil Steril.1953;4:10-33.
  7. Rowe P.J., Comhaire F.H., Hargreave T.B., Mllows H. J. WHO Manual for the standardised investigation and diagnosis of the infertile couple. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.1993.
  8. Bonde J.P., Ernst E., Jensen T.K., Hjollund N.H., Kolstad H., Henriksen T.B., et al. Relation between semen quality and fertility: a population- based study of 430 first- pregnancy planners. Lancet.1998;352:1172-1177.
  9. Jouannet P., Ducot B., Feneux D. Spira A. Male fac-tors and the likelihood of pregnancy in fertile couples; Study of sperm characteristics. Int J Androl. 1988;11: 379-394.
  10. Larsen L., Scheike T., Jensen T.K., Bonde J.P., Ernst E., Hjollund N.H., et al. Computer- assisted semen ana-lysis parameters as predictors for fertility of men from the general population. The Danish First Pregnancy Planner Study Team. Hum Reprod.2000;15:1562-1567.
  11. Jorgensen N., Auger J., Giwercman A., Irvine D.S., Jensen T.K., Jouannet P., et al. Semen Analysis per-formed by different laboratory teams: an intervention study. Int J Androl.1997;20(4):201-8.
  12. Mayaux M.J., Schwartz D., Czyglik F. David G. Con-ception rate according to semen characteristics in a series of 15364 insemination cycles; results of a multi-variate analysis. Andrologia.1985;17:9-15.
  13. Kruger T.F., Menkveld R., Stander F.S., Lombard C.J., Van der Merve J.P., van Zyl J.A. et al. Sperm morphologic features as a prognostic factor in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril.1986;46:1118-1123.
  14. Ombelet W., Vandeput H., Van de Putte G. Cox A, Janssen M., Jacobs P. Intrauterine insemination after ovarian stimulation with Clomiphene Citrate: predict-tive potential of inseminating motile count and sperm morphology. Hum Reprod.1997;12(7):1458-63.
  15. Baird D.D., Wilcox A.J. Weinberg C.R. Use of time to pregnancy to study environmental exposures. Am J Epidemiol.1986;124:470-480.
  16. Fisch H., Goluboff E.T. Geographic variations in Sperm counts: a potential cause of bias in studies of semen quality. Fertil Steril.1996;65:1044-1046.
  17. Comhaire F.H., Vermeulen L., Schoonjans F. Reas- sessment of the accuracy of traditional sperm charac-teristics and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) in estima-ting the fertilizing potential of human semen in vivo. Int J Androl.1987;10:653-662.
  18. McDonough P. Editorial comment: Has traditional sperm analysis lost its clinical relevance?. Fertil Steril. 1997;67:585-587.
  19. Ombelet W., Bosmans E., Janssen M., Cox A., Vlasselaer J. Semen parameters in a fertile versus subfertile population: a need for change in the interpretation of semen testing. Hum Reprod.1997a; 12:987-993.
  20. Jensen T.K., Slama R., Ducot B., Suominen J., Ca-wood E., Andersen A.G., et al. Regional differences in waiting time to pregnancy among couples from four European cities. Hum Reprod.2001;16:2697-2704.
  21. Haugen T.B., Egeland T., Magnus O. Semen parame-ters in Norwegian fertile men. J Androl.2006;27(1): 66-71.


Home | About Us | Current Issue | Past Issues | Submit a Manuscript | Instructions for Authors | Subscribe | Search | Contact Us

"Journal of Reproduction & Infertility" is owned, published, and managed by Avicenna Research Institute .
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution –NonCommercial 4.0 International License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly.

Journal of Reproductoin and Infertility (JRI) is a member of COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS . Verify here .

©2024 - eISSN : 2251-676X, ISSN : 2228-5482, For any comments and questions please contact us.