Reasons for rejecting potential donors from a sperm bank program

  • R. S. Sidhu
  • R. K. Sharma
  • S. Kachoria
  • C. Curtis
  • A. Agarwal
Andrology
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose: Recruiting donors to a sperm bank program is difficult and slow because of high dropout rates and high rejection rates. The profile of successful and unsuccessful donors was determined at our sperm bank.

Methods: A total of 199 men was screened from 1986 to 1994 in the anonymous sperm bank donor program; 174 (87%) men dropped out or did not meet minimum guidelines. The study included 25 accepted donors and 20 rejected men (of 52 rejected donors, only 20 donors who came for two consecutive semen analyses were selected). Sperm quality variables and demographic data were compared between the groups.

Results: Accepted donors had significantly better semen quality in motility, velocity, linearity, and ALH than did rejected donors (P < 0.01). More rejected donors than accepted donors were single (P < 0.01). A higher percentage of accepted donors consumed caffeine (P < 0.001), and they were more likely to have college degrees (P < 0.03).

Conclusions: These results indicate that loss of interest and poor semen quality were the major reasons for rejection of donors in our anonymous donor sperm bank program.

Key Words

computer-assisted semen analysis cryopreservation donor sperm bank semen 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gregoire AT, Mayer RC: The impregnators. Fertil Steril 1965;16:130–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nachtigall RD: Donor insemination and human immunodeficiency virus: A risk/benefit analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170:1692–1696PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bignall J: HIV infection from donor semen. Lancet 1995;345:719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barratt CLR, Cooke ID: Risks of donor insemination. BMJ 1989;299:1178–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berry WR, Gottesfeld RL, Alter HJ, Vierling JM: Transmission of hepatitis B virus by artificial insemination. JAMA 1987;257:1079–1081PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barratt CLR, Matson PL, Holt W: British Andrology Society guidelines for the screening of the donor insemination. Hum Reprod 1993;8:1521–1523PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chauhan M, Barratt CLR, Cooke S, Cooke ID: A protocol for the recruitment and screening of semen donors for an artificial insemination by donor programme. Hum Reprod 1988;3:873–876PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    New guidelines for the use of semen donor insemination: 1986. The American Fertility Society. Fertil Sertil 1986;46:85S-86SGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lansac J, Lannou DL: Reproductive health care policies around the world. J Assist Reprod and Genet 1994;11:231–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Golombok S, Cook R: Survey of semen donation: Phase I—the view of UK licensed centres. Hum Reprod 1994;9:882–888PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daniels K, Lalos O: The Swedish insemination act and the availability of donors. Hum Reprod 1995;10:1871–1874PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Edvinsson A, Forsman L, Nordfors G: Donor insemination for male infertility—the end of an epoch? Lakartidningen 1990;87:1871–1872PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    American Fertility Society: New guidelines for the use of semen donor insemination: 1990. Fertil Sertil 1990;53:1S-5SGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    American Fertility Society: Guidelines for therapeutic donor insemination: Sperm. Fertil Sertil 1993;59:1S-7SGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    American Association of Tissue Banks: Reproductive cells and tissues. In Technical Manual for Tissue Banking, 1992, pp R24–R30Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Health Organisation: WHOLaboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Semen-Cervical Mucus Interaction, 3rd ed. Cambridge, Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1992Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Agarwal A, Tolentino MV, Sidhu RS, Ayzman I, Lee J-C, Thomas AJ, Shekarriz M: Effect of cryopreservation on semen quality in patients with testicular cancer. Urology 1992;46:382–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Makler A: Donor insemination according to recent and strict guidelines—how safe can patients and doctors be. Hum Reprod 1995;10:2050–2051PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gerber WL, Bresaw LS: Semen abnormalities in artificial insemination donor candidates. J Urol 1983;130:266–268PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schenker JG: Sperm, oocyte, and pre-embryo donation. J Assist Reprod Genet 1995;12:499–508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vogt PH: Genetic aspects of artificial fertilization [Review]. Hum Reprod 1995;10 (Suppl 1):128–137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Daniels KR, Curson R, Lewis GM: Semen donor recruitment: A study of donors in two clinics. Hum Reprod 1996;11:746–751Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sharma RK, Tolentino MV, Thomas AJ, Agarwal A: Optimal dose and duration of exposure to artificial stimulants in cryopreserved human spermatozoa. J Urol 1996;155:568–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cai XQ, Marik JJ: Improving penetrating capacity of spermatozoa with poor motility by addition of caffeine at coincubation with zona-free hamster ova. Fertil Steril 1988;51:719–721Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Braude P, Johnson MH, Aitken RJ: Human fertilization and embryology bill goes to report stage. BMJ 1990;300:1410–1412PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mascola L: Semen donors as the source of sexually transmitted diseases in artificially inseminated women: The saga unfolds. JAMA 1987;257:1093–1094PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Causer DS, Papdimitriou JM: HIV transmission by donor semen. Lancet 1996;347:190–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schroeder-Jenkins M, Rothmann SA: Causes of donor rejection in a sperm banking program. Fertil Sertil 1986;51:903–906Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barratt CLR, Chauhan M, Cooke S, Cooke ID: Donor rejection [Letter; Comment]. Fertil Steril 1990;54:181–182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Keel BA, Webster BW, Roberts DK: Effects of cryopreservation on the motility characteristics of human spermatozoa. J Reprod Fertil 1987;81:213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Agarwal A, Shekarriz M, Sidhu RS, Thomas AJ: Value of clinical diagnosis in predicting the quality of cryopreserved sperm from cancer patients. J Urol 1996;155:934–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Haung H-Y, Lee C-L, Lai Y-M, Chang M-Y, Wang H-S, Chang S-Y, Soong Y-K: The impact of total motile sperm count on the success of intrauterine insemination with husband’s spermatozoa. J Assist Reprod Genet 1996;13:56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Francavilla F, Romano R, Santucci R, Poccia G: Effect of sperm morphology and motile sperm count on outcome of intrauterine insemination in oligospermia and/or asthenospermia. Fertil Steril 1990;53:892–897PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Marshburn PB, McIntire D, Carr BR, Byrd W: Spermatozoal characteristics from frozen donor semen and their correlation with fertility outcome after intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 1992;58:179–186PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. S. Sidhu
    • 1
  • R. K. Sharma
    • 1
  • S. Kachoria
    • 1
  • C. Curtis
    • 1
  • A. Agarwal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urology, A100, The Cleveland Clinic FoundationAndrology Research & Clinical LaboratoriesCleveland

Personalised recommendations