Andrologie

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 160–166 | Cite as

Le test post coïtal à l’heure de l’AMP

Revue Elément Diagnostic de l’Infertilité

Résumé

Ces dernières années, le développement considérable des techniques d’assistance médicale à la procréation (AMP) a modifié la prise en charge des couples infertiles, tant dans les possibilités thérapeutiques disponibles que dans l’évaluation diagnostique. Face aux taux de succès obtenus, la pratique des tests conventionnels est fréquemment mise en cause et notamment le test post coïtal (ou test de Hühner), qui fait l’objet d’opinions divergentes. Dans ce contexte, le but de cet article est de réévaluer l’intérêt du test post coïtal et de préciser son influence éventuelle dans la stratégie de prise en charge en Assistance Médicale à la Procréation des couples infertiles. Certaines situations clinico-biologiques justifient la pratique du test dans cette perspective de prise en charge, notamment pour diagnostiquer une infertilité d’origine cervicale, explorer une infertilité inexpliquée et mettre en évidence une pathologie du mouvement des spermatozoïdes

Mots-clés

test post coïtal test de Hühner mucus cervical AMP infertilité inexpliquée dyskinésie flagellaire 

Value of the post-coital test in the age of assisted reproductive technologies

Abstract

The recent development of assisted reproductive technologies has greatly modified treatment and evaluation of infertility. In view of the high pregnancy rates obtained, the value of conventional diagnostic tests, especially the post-coital test, has become controversial.

Apart from differences in terms of standardization, the confusion concerning the diagnostic and prognostic value is largely due to the interpretation and the purpose of the test.

According to the World Health Organization guidelines, the post-coital test remains a reliable tool for the diagnosis of cervical infertility and sperm dysfunction, which is a possible cause of unexplained infertility. Over the last two cases, most other conventional tests have become inoperative and the results of the post-coital test may indicate the need for further investigations and may positively influence the treatment strategy.

Key-words

post-coital test cervical mucus ART unexplained infertility flagellar dyskinesia 

References

  1. 1.
    ABU-HEIJA A.T., FLEMING R., JAMIESON M.E.: The effect of sperm-mucus interaction test on the outcome of in vitro fertilization and ovulation induction combined with intrauterin insemination. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res., 1996, 22: 229–233.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    BALASCH J., JOVE I., BALLESCA J.L. et al.: Human in vitro fertilization in couples with unexplained infertility and a poor postcoital test. Gynecol. Endocrinol., 1989, 3: 289–295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    BALASCH J.: Investigation of the infertile couple: investigation of the infertile couple in the era of assisted reproductive technology: a time for reappraisal. Hum. Reprod., 2000, Nov. 15: 2251–2257.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    BARRATT C.L., ST JOHN J.C.: Diagnostic tools in male infertility. Hum. Reprod., 1998, 13, Suppl. 1: 51–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    BERBEROGLUGIL P., ENGLERT Y., VAN DEN BERGH M. et al.: Abnormal sperm-mucus penetration test predicts low in vitro fertilization ability of apparently normal semen. Fertil. Steril., 1993, 59: 1228–1232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    CHRETIEN F.C., GERNIGON C., DAVID G. et al.: The ultrastructure of human cervical mucus under scanning electron microscopy. Fertil. Steril., 1973, 24: 746–757.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    CHRETIEN F.C.: The physiological importance of cervical secretion and its role in reproduction. Contracept. Fertil. Sex., 1979, 7: 31–41.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    COX J.F., ZAVALA A., SARAVIA F. et al.: Differences in sperm migration through cervical mucus in vitro relates to sperm colonization of the oviduct and fertilizing ability in goats. Theriogenology, 2002, 58: 9–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DAVID G., FENEUX D., SERRES C. et al.: A new entity of sperm pathology: peri-axonemal flagellar dyskinesia. Bull. Acad. Natl. Med., 1993, 177: 263–271.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    EGGERT-KRUSE W., KOHLERA A., ROHR G. et al.: The pH as an important determinant of sperm-mucus interaction. Fertil. Steril., 1993, 59: 617–628.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ESCALIER D., DAVID G.: Pathology of the cytoskeleton of the human sperm flagellum: axonemal and peri-axonemal anomalies. Biol. Cell., 1984, 50: 37–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    FIVNAT: Bilan des tentatives 2001. Edition 2002, Organon en gynécologie.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    GLAZENER C.M., FORD W.C., HULL M.G.: The prognostic power of the post-coital test for natural conception depends on duration of infertility. Hum. Reprod., 2000, 15: 1953–1957.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    GLAZENER C.M., FORD W.C.: predicting conception. Hum. Fertil. (Camb), 2002, 5 (1 Suppl): S3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    HEIN M., VALORE E.V., HELMIG R.B. et al.: Antimicrobial factors in the cervical mucus plug. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2002, 187: 137–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    HELMERHORST F.M., FINKEN M.J., ERWICH J.J.: Antisperm antibodies: detection assays for antisperm antibodies: what do they test? Hum. Reprod., 1999, 14: 1669–1671.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    HJORT T.: Do autoantibodies to sperm reduce fecundity? A mini-review in historical perspective. Am. J. Reprod. Immunol., 1998, 40: 215–222.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    HULL M.G., SAVAGE P.E., BROMHAM D.R.: Prognostic value of the postcoital test: prospective study based on time-specific conception rates. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., 1982, 89: 299–305.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    HULL M.G., JOYCE D.N., MCLEOD F.N. et al.: Human in-vitro fertilisation, in-vivo sperm penetration of cervical mucus, and unexplained infertility. Lancet, 1984, 4 (8397): 245–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    HULL M.G.: Infertility treatment: relative effectiveness of conventional and assisted conception methods. Hum. Reprod., 1992, 7: 785–796.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    HUHNER M.: The Huhner test as a diagnosis of sterility due to necrospermia. J. Obstet. Gynec., 1937, 44: 334.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    JOUANNET P., SEREES C.: Le mouvement du spermatozoïde humain. Bull. Acad. Natl. Med., 1998: 182: 1025–1034.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    MENARGUEZ M., PASTOR L.M., ODEBLAD E.: Morphological characterization of different human cervical mucus types using light and scanning electron microscopy. Hum. Reprod., 2003, 9: 1782–1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    OEI S.G., KEIRSE M.J., BLOEMENKAMP K.W. et al.: European postcoital tests: opinions and practice. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., 1995, 102: 621–624.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    OEI S.G., HELMERHORST F.M., KEIRSE M.J.: When is the post-coital test normal? A critical appraisal. Hum. Reprod., 1995, 10: 1711–1714.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    OEI S.G., BLOEMENKAMP K.W., HELMERHORST F.M. et al.: Evaluation of the postcoital test for assessment of ‘cervical factor’ infertility. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 1996, 64: 217–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    OEI S.G., HELMERHORST F.M., BLOEMENKAMP K.W. et al.: Effectiveness of the postcoital test: randomised controlled trial. Br. Med. J., 1998, 317: 502–505.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    OLA B., AFNAN M., PAPAIOANNOU S. et al.: Accuracy of sperm-cervical mucus penetration tests in evaluating sperm motility in semen: a systematic quantitative review. Hum. Reprod., 2003, 5: 1037–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    OMBELET W., VANDEPUT H., JANSSEN M. et al.: Treatment of male infertility due to sperm surface antibodies: IUI or IVF? Hum. Reprod., 1997, 12: 1165–1170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    RANDALL J.M., TEMPLETON A.: Cervical mucus score and in vitro sperm mucus interaction in spontaneous and clomiphene citrate cycles. Fertil. Steril., 1991, 56: 465–468.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    SCHATS R., AITKEN R.J., TEMPLETON A.A. et al.: The role of cervical mucus-semen interaction in infertility of unknown etiology. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol., 1984, 91: 371–376.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    SERRES C., FENEUX D., JOUANNET P.: Abnormal distribution of the periaxonemal structures in a human sperm flagellar dyskinesia. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton, 1986, 6: 68–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    SIM J.M.: On the microscope, as an aid in the diagnosis and treatment from sterility. Med. J., 1869, 8: 393.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    WAINER R., ALBERT M., DORION A. et al.: Influence of the number of motile spermatozoa inseminated and of their morphology on the success of intrauterine insemination. Hum. Reprod., 2004, 19: 2060–2065.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    WHO World Health Organization laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and sperm-cervical mucus interaction. 4th edition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    WOLF J.P., FENEUX D., ESCALIER D. et al.: Pregnancy after subzonal insemination with spermatozoa lacking outer dynein arms. J. Reprod. Fertil., 1993, 97: 487–492.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    WOLF J.P., FENEUX D., DUCOT B. et al.: Influence of sperm movement parameters on human sperm-oolemma fusion. J. Reprod. Fertil., 1995, 105: 185–192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    WOLF J.P., DE ALMEIDA M., DUCOT B. et al.: High levels of sperm-associated antibodies impair human sperm-oolemma interaction after subzonal insemination. Fertil. Steril., 1995, 63: 584–590.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société d’Andrologie de Langue Française 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Service d’Histologie-Embryologie-Cytogénétique, Biologie de la Reproduction et Génétique MédicaleC.H.I. Poissy-Saint Germain en LayePoissy Cedex
  2. 2.UFR Paris IIe de France OuestUniversité Versailles-Saint Quentin en YvelinesVersaillesFrance

Personalised recommendations