Optimal timing for repeat semen analysis during male infertility evaluation
Nahid Punjani, M.D., M.P.H.,
Gal Wald, M.D.,
Omar Al-Hussein Alwamlh, M.D.,
Miriam Feliciano,
Vanessa Dudley, M.S.H.S.,
Marc Goldstein, M.D., D.Sc. (Hon)
Affiliations
Nahid Punjani, M.D., M.P.H.
Center for Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
Gal Wald, M.D.
Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
Omar Al-Hussein Alwamlh, M.D.
Center for Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
Miriam Feliciano
Center for Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
Vanessa Dudley, M.S.H.S.
Center for Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
Marc Goldstein, M.D., D.Sc. (Hon)
Center for Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York; Reprint requests: Marc Goldstein, M.D., D.Sc. (Hons), Matthew P. Hardy Distinguished Professor of Reproductive Medicine, and Urology Surgeon-in-Chief, Male Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital, 525 East 68th Street, Starr Pavilion, Suite 900, New York, New York 10065.
Objective: To assess whether the 4-week time period between semen analyses during the workup of male infertility is optimal and whether two samples are needed. Design: Retrospective study. Setting: Tertiary hospital. Patient(s): Men whose semen samples were obtained within 90 days of each other, without known fertility intervention, treatment, and/or azoospermia. Intervention(s): Semen analysis. Main Outcome Measure(s): Correlation between semen parameters and agreement among consecutive semen analyses. Result(s): A total of 2,150 semen samples from 1,075 men were included in the analysis. The optimal correlation for volume occurred at weeks 2, 8, and 12 (r = 0.803, r = 0.802, and r = 0.821, respectively). For concentration, the correlation was maximized at weeks 1, 4, and 5 (r = 0.950, r = 0.841, and r = 0.795, respectively). Total sperm count correlated at weeks 1, 2, and 4 (r = 0.929, r = 0.727, and r = 0.808, respectively). Motility was maximally correlated at weeks 1, 10, and 13 (r = 0.711, r = 0.760, and r = 0.708, respectively). Morphology was optimally correlated at weeks 1, 2, and 9 (r = 0.935, r = 0.815, and r = 0.839, respectively). Semen volume was correlated in 55% of men, sperm concentration in 64% of men, sperm motility in 52% of men and sperm morphology 64% of men. Conclusion(s): Our data suggest that four weeks may not be the optimal time for repeat semen analysis and that one sample is insufficient to assess any abnormalities in the result of semen analysis. The optimal time between repeat semen analyses should be individualized depending on the results of the initial analysis and additional factors, suggesting the need for future large-scale studies to investigate this trend.