Should Sperm DNA Fragmentation Testing Be Used in Men with Varicocele?

  • Chak-Lam Cho


Current practice in selection of surgical candidates for varicocelectomy based on clinical assessment and semen analysis has its pitfall and drawbacks. The advent of sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) testing allows the evaluation of sperm quality which is not assessed by conventional semen parameters. The value of SDF testing was supported by the implication of sperm chromatin integrity on both natural and assisted reproductive outcomes. Higher SDF despite fertility status and the reduction of SDF after varicocelectomy in men also offers evidence in support of the use of SDF assays in this patient group. Clinical utilization of SDF testing in selection of surgical candidates has been proposed and recently included in clinical practice guidelines. Although SDF alone is insufficient to predict fertility status, its complementary role in the current practice should be recognized.


Male infertility Sperm DNA damage Sperm DNA fragmentation Varicocele Varicocelectomy 


  1. 1.
    Guzick DS, Overstreet JW, Factor-Litvak P, et al. Sperm morphology, motility, and concentration in fertile and infertile men. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1388–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leuchtenberger C, Schrader F, Weir DR, et al. The deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) content in spermatozoa of fertile and infertile human males. Chromosoma. 1953;6:61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ringertz NR, Gledhill BL, Darzynkiewicz Z. Changes in deoxyribonucleoprotein during spermiogenesis in the bull. Sensitivity of DNA to heat denaturation. Exp Cell Res. 1970;62:204–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cho CL, Esteves SC, Agarwal A. Novel insights into the pathophysiology of varicocele and its association with reactive oxygen species and sperm DNA fragmentation. Asian J Androl. 2016;18:186–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile male: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:e18–25.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jarow J, Sigman M, Kolettis PN, et al. The optimal evaluation of the infertile male: best practice statement reviewed and validated confirmed 2011. Available online:
  7. 7.
    Jungwirth A, Diemer T, Dohle GR, et al. Guidelines on male infertility. Available online:
  8. 8.
    Agarwal A, Cho CL, Majzoub A, Esteves SC. The Society for Translational Medicine: clinical practice guidelines for sperm DNA fragmentation testing in male infertility. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(Suppl 4):S720–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Majzoub A, Agarwal A, Cho CL, Esteves SC. Sperm DNA fragmentation testing: a cross sectional survey on current practices of fertility specialists. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(Suppl 4):S710–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spano M, Bonde JP, Hjollund HI, et al. Sperm chromatin damage impairs human fertility. The Danish First Pregnancy Planner Study Team. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buck Louis GM, Sundaram R, Schisterman EF, et al. Semen quality and time to pregnancy: the Longitudinal Investigation of Fertility and the Environment Study. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:453–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zini A. Are sperm chromatin and DNA defects relevant in the clinic? Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2011;57:78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Agarwal A, Cho CL, Esteves SC. Should we evaluate and treat sperm DNA fragmentation? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;28:164–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhao J, Zhang Q, Wang Y, Li Y. Whether sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation has an effect on pregnancy and miscarriage after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a systematic review and meta analysis. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:998–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Osman A, Alsomait H, Seshadri S, et al. The effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on live birth rate after IVF or ICSI: a systematic review and meta analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30:120–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Benchaib M, Lornage J, Mazoyer C, et al. Sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation as a prognostic indicator of assisted reproductive technology outcome. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Avendano C, Franchi A, Duran H, Oehninger S. DNA fragmentation of normal spermatozoa negatively impacts embryo quality and intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:549–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robinson L, Gallos ID, Conner SJ, et al. The effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on miscarriage rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:2908–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sakkas D, Umer F, Bizzaro D, et al. Sperm DNA damage and altered chromatin structure effect on fertilization and embryo development. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(Suppl 4):11–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Evgeni E, Lymberopoulos G, Gazouli M, Asimakopoulos B. Conventional semen parameters and DNA fragmentation in relation to fertility status in a Greek population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;188:17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith R, Kaune H, Parodi D, et al. Increased sperm DNA damage in patients with varicocele: relationship with seminal oxidative stress. Hum Reprod. 2016;21:986–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Esteves SC, Gosalvez J, Lopez-Fernandez C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of sperm DNA degradation index (DDSi) as a potential noninvasive biomarker to identify men with varicocele-associated infertility. Int Urol Nephrol. 2015;47:1471–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zini A, Dohle G. Are varicoceles associated with increased deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation? Fertil Steril. 2011;96:1283–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang YJ, Zhang RQ, Lin YJ, et al. Relationship between varicocele and sperm DNA damage and the effect of varicocele repair: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25:307–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roque M, Esteves SC. Effect of varicocele repair on sperm DNA fragmentation: a review. Int Urol Nephrol. 2018;50:583–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Werthman P, Wixon R, Kasperson K, et al. Significant decrease in sperm deoxyribonucleic acid fragmentation after varicocelectomy. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:1800–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moskovstev SI, Lecker I, Mullen JB, et al. Cause-specific treatment in patients with high sperm DNA damage resulted in significant DNA improvement. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2009;55:109–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lacerda JI, Del Giudice PT, da Silva BF, et al. Adolescent varicocele: improved sperm function after varicocelectomy. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:994–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smit M, Romijn JC, Wildhagen MF, et al. Decreased sperm DNA fragmentation after surgical varicocelectomy is associated with increased pregnancy rate. J Urol. 2013;189:S146–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ni K, Steger K, Yang H, et al. Sperm protamine mRNA ratio and DNA fragmentation index represent reliable clinical biomarkers for men with varicocele after microsurgical varicocele ligation. J Urol. 2014;192:170–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mohammad EE, Mosad E, Zahran AM, et al. Acridine orange and flow cytometry: which is better to measure the effect of varicocele on sperm DNA integrity? Adv Urol. 2015;2015:814150.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Baker K, McGill J, Sharma R, et al. Pregnancy after varicocelectomy: impact of postoperative motility and DFI. Urology. 2013;81:760–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nasr-Esfahani MH, Abasi H, Razavi S, et al. Varicocelectomy: semen parameters and protamine deficiency. Int J Androl. 2009;32:115–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Esteves SC, Zini A, Aziz N, et al. Critical appraisal of World Health Organization’s new reference values for human semen characteristics and effect on diagnosis and treatment of subfertile men. Urology. 2012;79:16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cheval M, Purcell M. Deterioration of semen parameters over time in men with untreated varicocele: evidence of progressive testicular damage. Fertil Steril. 1992;57:174–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chak-Lam Cho
    • 1
  1. 1.S.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of SurgeryPrince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong KongShatinHong Kong

Personalised recommendations