ART and Its Impact on Male Infertility Management

  • Alice Rhoton-VlasakEmail author
  • Kenneth C. Drury


Approximately 12–15% of sexually active couples are infertile. The etiology of infertility is likely multifactorial. Previous work has estimated that 50% of infertility is attributed to the female, 30% to the male, and 20% to both the male and female. Recent advances, mainly in the assisted reproductive technologies, have allowed some couples with severe male factor infertility to establish a pregnancy. The most significant advance is in vitro fertilization (IVF) with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Previously, these couples had at best only a remote chance of establishing a pregnancy due to severely reduced sperm concentration, compromised sperm function, or uncorrectable obstruction. As a result of the high success of IVF/ICSI, and as a by-product of the fact that fertility visits are often initiated by the female partner, the practice of modern assisted reproductive technology (ART) can often times proceed without a complete evaluation of the male partner. Instead, almost any couple even those with a severe male factor, after being evaluated by only a reproductive endocrinologist, can theoretically become pregnant using IVF/ICSI.


Male factor infertility Urological evaluation Male infertility workup Klinefelter’s syndrome Obstructive azoospermia Cystic fibrosis membrane regulator gene Assisted reproductive technology Urology Reproductive endocrinology 



I would like to acknowledge Rena Fitzgerald and Cindy Puckett for their excellent editorial and transcription services.


  1. 1.
    Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, et al. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet. 1992;340:17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sherins RJ, Thorsell LP, Dorfmann A, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection facilitates fertilization even in the most severe forms of male infertility: pregnancy outcome correlates with maternal age and number of eggs available. Fertil Steril. 1995;64:369.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alukal JP, Lipshultz LI. Why treat the male in the era of assisted reproduction? Semin Reprod Med. 2009;27:109–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nangia AK, Likosky DS, Wang D. Distribution of male infertility specialists in relation to the male population and assisted reproductive technology centers in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(2): 599–609.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kolettis PN, Sabanegh ES. Significant medical pathology discovered during a male infertility evaluation. J Urol. 2001;166:178–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet. 1978;2:366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferguson-Smith MA, Lennox B, Mack WS, et al. Klinefelter’s syndrome; frequency and testicular morphology in relation to nuclear sex. Lancet. 1957;273:167–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tiepolo L, Zuffardi O. Localization of factors controlling spermatogenesis in the nonfluorescent portion of the human Y chromosome long arm. Hum Genet. 1976;34:119–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anguiano A, Oates RD, Amos JA. Congenital bilateral absence of the vas deferens. A primarily genital form of cystic fibrosis. JAMA. 1992;267:1794–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garceau L, Henderson J, Davis LJ, et al. Economic implications of assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:3090–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Genetic considerations related to intraductive medicine. Genetic consideration related to intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Fertil Steril. 2006;86(5, Suppl):S103–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. ACOG Practice Bulletins. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists number 34, February 2002. Management of infertility caused by ovulatory dysfunction. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:347–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martinez GM, Chandra A, Mosher GM, Jones J, et al. Fertility, family planning and reproductive health of US women: data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital Health Stat. 2005;23:1–60.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keel BA, Webster BW. The semen analysis. In: Keel BA, Webster BW, editors. CRC handbook of the laboratory diagnosis and treatment of infertility. Boston: CRC Press; 1990. p. 27–69.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mortimere D. Practical laboratory andrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keel BA. Within and between subject variation in semen parameters in infertile men and normal semen donors. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:128–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Geneva: WHO; 2010.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Handelsman DJ, Cooper TG. Foreword to semen analysis in 21st century medicine special issue in Asian Journal of Andrology. Asian J Androl. 2010;12:59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ford WCL. Comments on the release of the 5th edition of the WHO Laboratory manual for the Examination and Processing of Human Semen. Asian J Androl. 2010;12:59–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boyd JC. Defining laboratory reference values and decision limits: populations, intervals, and interpretations. Asian J Androl. 2010;12: 83–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brazil C. Practical semen analysis: from A to Z. Asian J Androl. 2010;12:14–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sharma RK, Agarwal A. Role of reactive oxygen species in male infertility. Urology. 1996;48(6):835–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lanzafame FM, La Vignera S, Vicari E, et al. Oxidative stress and medical antioxidant treatment in male infertility. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19(5):638–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    James PS, Wolfe CA, Mackie A, et al. Lipid dynamics in the plasma membrane of fresh and cryopreserved human spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(7):1827–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kefer JC, Agarwal A, Sabanegh E. Role of antioxidants in the treatment of male infertility. Int J Urol. 2009;16:449–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mahfouz R, Sharma R, Thiyagarajan A, et al. Semen characteristics and sperm DNA fragmentation in infertile men with low and high levels of seminal reactive oxygen species. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2141–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Showell MG, Brown J, Yazdani L, et al. Oral anti-oxidant use for male partners of couples undergoing fertility treatment. ESHRE annual meeting. Rome, Italy; 2010. Poster #P-006.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Deepinder F, Cocuzza M, Agarwal A. Should seminal oxidative stress measurement be offered routinely to men presenting for infertility evaluation? Endocr Pract. 2008;14(4):484–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fraga CG, Motchnik PA, Wyrobek AJ, et al. Smoking and low ­antioxidant levels increase oxidative damage to sperm DNA. Mutat Res. 1996;351(13):199–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fraga CG, Motchnik PA, Shigenaga MK, et al. Ascorbic acid protects against endogenous oxidative DNA damage in human sperm. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1991;54(6):1302S–9.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jacob RA, Kelley DS, Pianalto FS, et al. Immunocompetence and oxidant defense during ascorbate depletion of healthy men. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991;54(6):1302S–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zini A, SanGabriel M, Baazeem A. Antioxidants and sperm DNA damage: a clinical perspective. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26(8): 427–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Guérin P, Moutassim SEI, Ménézo Y. Oxidative stress and protection against reactive oxygen species in the pre-implantation embryo and its surroundings. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7:175–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bedaiwy M, Agarwal A, Said TM, et al. Role of total antioxidant capacity in the differential growth of human embryos in vitro. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(2):304–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hosseini SM, Forouzanfar M, Hajian M, et al. Antioxidant supplementation of culture medium during embryo development and/or after vitrification-warming; which is the most important? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26(6):355–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Smith GD, Takayama S. Gamete and embryo isolation and culture with microfluidics. Theriogenology. 2007;68(1):S190–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Aitken RJ, Clarkson JS. Significance of reactive oxygen species and antioxidants in defining the efficacy of sperm preparation techniques. J Androl. 1988;9:367–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Henkel RR, Schill WB. Sperm preparation for ART. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2003;1:108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sakkas D, Alavarez JG. Sperm DNA fragmentation: mechanisms of origin, impact on reproductive outcome, and analysis. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(4):1027–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Brotherton J. Cryopreservation of human semen. Arch Androl. 1990;25(2):181–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Curry MR. Cryopreservation of mammalian semen. Methods Mol Biol. 2007;368:303–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Barbas JP, Mascarenhas RD. Cryopreservation of domestic animal sperm cells. Cell Tissue Bank. 2009;10(1):49–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Curry MR. Cryopreservation of semen from domestic livestock. Rev Reprod. 2000;5(1):46–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Alvarez JG, Storey BT. Differential incorporation of fatty acids into and peroxidative loss of fatty acids from phospholipids of human spermatozoa. Mol Reprod Dev. 1995;42(3):334–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hammitt DG, Ferrigini RG, Sattler CA, et al. Development of a new and efficient laboratory method for processing testicular sperm. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2002;19(7):335–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cohen J, Garrisi GJ, Congedo-Ferrara TA, et al. Cryopreservation of single human spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:994–1001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Desai NN, Blackmon H, Goldfarb J. Single sperm cryopreservation on cryoloops: an alternative to hamster zona for freezing individual spermatozoa. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;9(1):47–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Endou Y, Fujii Y, Motoyama H. Cryopreservation of single spermatozoa using Cryo Top. Abstracts of the 26th annual meeting of ESHRE. Rome, Italy; 2010. P-004.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fujii Y, Endou Y, Motoyama H. A simple method for cryopreservation of small numbers of human spermatozoa. Abstracts of the 26th annual meeting of ESHRE. Rome, Italy; 2010. P-011.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kruger TF, Menkveld R, Stander FSH, et al. Sperm morphologic features as a prognostic factor in in-vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1988;46(6):1118–23.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kruger TF, Acosta AA, Simmons KF, et al. Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in in-vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1988;49(1):112–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Walker NI, Harmon BV, Gobé GC, et al. Patterns of cell death. Methods Achiev Exp Pathol. 1988;13:18–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sakkas D, Alvarez JG. Sperm DNA fragmentation: mechanisms of origin, impact on reproductive outcome, and analysis. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(4):1027–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Castro AP, Carchenilla MSC, Salvanes R, et al. Dynamics of sperm DNA fragmentation in fresh and processed samples used for ICSI cycles. Abstracts of the 26th annual meeting of ESHRE. Rome, Italy; 2010. P-014.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Aitken RJ, Koppers AJ. Apoptosis and DNA damage in human spermatozoa. Asian J Androl. 2011;13:36–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Aitken RJ, Delulis GN, Finnie JM, et al. Analysis of the relationships between oxidative stress, DNA damage and sperm vitality in a patient population: development of diagnostic criteria. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(10):2415–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Recently reviewed Practice Committee report: the ­clinical utility of sperm DNA integrity testing. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(5): S178–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Barratt CLR, DeJonge CJ. Clinical relevance of sperm DNA assessment: an update. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1958–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Gilchrist RB, Lane M, Thompson JG. Oocyte-secreted factors: regulators of cumulus cell function and oocyte quality. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14(2):159–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sabeur K, Cherr GN, Ashley I, et al. Hyaluronic acid enhances induction of the acrosome reaction of human sperm through interaction with the PH-20 protein. Zygote. 1998;6:103–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Huzar G. Fertility testing and ICSI sperm selection by hyaluronic acid binding: clinical and genetic aspects. Reprod BioMed Online. 2007;14(5):650–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Yagci A, Murk W, Stronk J, et al. Spermatoozoa bound to solid state hyaluronic acid show chromatin structure with high DNA chain integrity: an acridine orange fluorescence study. J Androl. 2010;31:566–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hazout A, Dumont-Hassan M, Junca AM, et al. High-magnification ICSI overcomes paternal effect resistant to conventional ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12(1):19–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Vanderzwalmen P, Hiemer A, Rubner P, et al. Blastocyst development after sperm selection at high magnification is associated with size and number of nuclear vacuoles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(5):617–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Bartoov B, Berkovitz A, Eltes F, et al. Pregnancy rates are higher with introcytoplasic morphologically selected sperm injection than with conventional intracytoplasmic injection. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:1413–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Setti AS, Ferreira RC, Braga DP. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome versus intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection outcome: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(4):450–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Batista J, Oliveira A, Massaro FC, et al. Correlation between semen analysis by motile sperm organelle morphology examination and sperm DNA damage. Presented at the 65 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(5):1937–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Parmegiani L, Cognigni GE, Bernardi S, et al. “Physiologic ICSI”: hyaluronic acid (HA) favors selection of spermatozoa without DNA fragmentation and with normal nucleus, resulting in improvement of embryo quality. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):598–604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Nagy ZP, Kerkis I, Chang C. Development of artificial gametes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;16(4):539–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Nolte J, Michelmann HW, Wolf M, et al. PSCDGs of mouse multipotent adult germline stem cells can enter and progress through meiosis to form haploid male germ cells in vitro. Differentiation. 2010;80:184–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Hua J, Pan S, Yang C, et al. Derivation of male germ cell-like lineage from human fetal bone marrow stem cells. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19(1):99–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. MacLeod J. Human male infertility. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1971;26: 325–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Tielemans E, Burdorf A, teVelde E, et al. Sources of bias in studies among infertility clients. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156:86–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyShands HospitalGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.In Vitro Fertilization and Andrology Laboratory, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Florida College of MedicineGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations