CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Sperm and Testicular FunctionReproductive Health and TechnologiesMale Reproductive Health Studies

Sperm morphology value in assisted reproduction: dismantling an enigma and key takeaways for the busy clinician

Open access
Wyns, Christine, Vogiatzi, Paraskevi, Saleh, Ramadan, Shah, Rupin, Agarwal, Ashok·2024·Therapeutic Advances in Reproductive Health
DOI 10.1177/26334941241303888PMC PMC11624537
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The ideal morphology of the sperm cell was initially described based on the characteristics of sperm able to migrate through the endocervical canal assuming these had the best fertilization potential. Sperm morphology assessment has moved over the years toward stricter criteria based on the findings from studies that underline its value in successful reproductive outcomes. While treatment options are clear for some conditions related to abnormal sperm morphology, the value of sperm morphology in assisted reproduction requires further investigation. The objective of this review is to offer care providers updated guidance for choosing appropriate treatment strategies based on sperm morphology assessment and morphological deviations. Issues to be considered for a reliable determination and interpretation of sperm morphology using the current thresholds and criteria are discussed. In addition, key knowledge on morphological abnormalities relevant to the clinical care of infertile patients, distinguishing between monomorphic and polymorphic forms as well as the isolated or non-isolated occurrence of teratozoospermia in semen is presented. Furthermore, the impact of impaired morphology on assisted reproductive technique outcomes is summarized in light of the latest research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/26334941241303888

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. [2]WHO. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen, sixth edition. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2021. PMC8443989 34169684
  2. [3]Kruger TF Menkveld R Stander FS, et al. Sperm morphologic features as a prognostic factor in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1986; 46: 1118– 1123. 2946611
  3. [4]Brahem S Elghezal H Ghedir H, et al. Cytogenetic and molecular aspects of absolute teratozoospermia: comparison between polymorphic and monomorphic forms. Urology 2011; 78: 1313– 1319. 22137696
  4. [5]Coutton C Escoffier J Martinez G, et al. Teratozoospermia: spotlight on the main genetic actors in the human. Hum Reprod Update 2015; 21: 455– 485. 25888788
  5. [6]Cassuto NG Piquemal D Boitrelle F, et al. Molecular profiling of spermatozoa reveals correlations between morphology and gene expression: a novel biomarker panel for male infertility. Biomed Res Int 2021; 2021: 1434546. 34604380 PMC8485144
  6. [8]Shabtaie SA Gerkowicz SA Kohn TP, et al. Role of abnormal sperm morphology in predicting pregnancy outcomes. Curr Urol Rep 2016; 17: 67. 27469478
  7. [9]Agarwal A Sharma R Gupta S, et al. Sperm morphology assessment in the era of intracytoplasmic sperm injection: reliable results require focus on standardization, quality control, and training. World J Mens Health 2022; 40: 347– 360. 34169687 PMC9253798
  8. [10]Ombelet W Dhont N Thijssen A, et al. Semen quality and prediction of IUI success in male subfertility: a systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online 2014; 28: 300– 309. 24456701
  9. [12]Lemmens L Kos S Beijer C, et al. Predictive value of sperm morphology and progressively motile sperm count for pregnancy outcomes in intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 2016; 105: 1462– 1468. 26930619
  10. [13]Sun Y Li B Fan LQ, et al. Does sperm morphology affect the outcome of intrauterine insemination in patients with normal sperm concentration and motility? Andrologia 2012; 44: 299– 304. 22335521
  11. [14]Stanhiser J Mersereau JE Dock D, et al. Sperm morphology from the actual inseminated sample does not predict clinical pregnancy following intrauterine insemination. F S Rep 2021; 2: 16– 21. 34223268 PMC8244316
  12. [15]Sayegh L Shah R Shmoury M, et al. Sperm morphology by strict criteria does not predict clinical pregnancy rate following intra-uterine insemination. Arab J Urol 2024; 22: 195– 205. 39355794 PMC11441082
  13. [16]Li B Ma Y Huang J, et al. Probing the effect of human normal sperm morphology rate on cycle outcomes and assisted reproductive methods selection. PLoS One 2014; 9: e113392. PMC4239063 25411962
  14. [17]van den Hoven L Hendriks JC Verbeet JG, et al. Status of sperm morphology assessment: an evaluation of methodology and clinical value. Fertil Steril 2015; 103: 53– 58. 25450299
  15. [18]Zhou WJ Huang C Jiang SH, et al. Influence of sperm morphology on pregnancy outcome and offspring in in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a matched case-control study. Asian J Androl 2021; 23: 421– 428. 33533739 PMC8269829
  16. [19]Villani MT Morini D Spaggiari G, et al. Are sperm parameters able to predict the success of assisted reproductive technology? A retrospective analysis of over 22,000 assisted reproductive technology cycles. Andrology 2022; 10: 310– 321. 34723422 PMC9298690
  17. [20]Lin TK Chan LL Lai TH, et al. Novel modified criteria for sperm morphology in oocyte insemination could reduce ICSI rates without affecting IVF outcomes. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2023; 62: 525– 529. 37407188
  18. [22]French DB Sabanegh ES Jr Goldfarb J, et al. Does severe teratozoospermia affect blastocyst formation, live birth rate, and other clinical outcome parameters in ICSI cycles? Fertil Steril 2010; 93: 1097– 1103. 19200957
  19. [23]Hall J Fishel S Green S, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus high insemination concentration in-vitro fertilization in cases of very severe teratozoospermia. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 493– 496. 7782417
  20. [25]Hotaling JM Smith JF Rosen M, et al. The relationship between isolated teratozoospermia and clinical pregnancy after in vitro fertilization with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 1141– 1145. 21030014
  21. [27]Pisarska MD Casson PR Cisneros PL, et al. Fertilization after standard in vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in subfertile males using sibling oocytes. Fertil Steril 1999; 71: 627– 632. 10202870
  22. [28]Fan W Li SW Li L, et al. Outcome of conventional IVF and ICSI on sibling oocytes in the case of isolated teratozoospermia. J Assist Reprod Genet 2012; 29: 905– 910. 22733316 PMC3463669
  23. [29]Modarres P Tavalaee M Ghaedi K, et al. An overview of the globozoospermia as a multigenic identified syndrome. Int J Fertil Steril 2019; 12: 273– 277. 30291685 PMC6186287
  24. [30]Crafa A Condorelli RA La Vignera S, et al. Globozoospermia: a case report and systematic review of literature. World J Mens Health 2023; 41: 49– 80. 36047070 PMC9826911
  25. [31]Kamali-Dolat Abadi M Tavalaee M Shahverdi A, et al. Evaluation of PLCzeta and PAWP expression in globozoospermic individuals. Cell J 2016; 18: 438– 445. 27602326 PMC5011332
  26. [32]Chansel-Debordeaux L Dandieu S Bechoua S, et al. Reproductive outcome in globozoospermic men: update and prospects. Andrology 2015; 3: 1022– 1034. 26445006
  27. [33]van Blerkom J Cohen J Johnson M. A plea for caution and more research in the “experimental” use of ionophores in ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 30: 323– 324. 25841874
  28. [34]Dieterich K Soto Rifo R Faure AK, et al. Homozygous mutation of AURKC yields large-headed polyploid spermatozoa and causes male infertility. Nat Genet 2007; 39: 661– 665. 17435757
  29. [35]Brahem S Mehdi M Elghezal H, et al. Study of aneuploidy rate and sperm DNA fragmentation in large-headed, multiple-tailed spermatozoa. Andrologia 2012; 44: 130– 135. 21714801
  30. [36]Eloualid A Rouba H Rhaissi H, et al. Prevalence of the Aurora kinase C c.144delC mutation in infertile Moroccan men. Fertil Steril 2014; 101: 1086– 1090. 24484996
  31. [37]Beurois J Cazin C Kherraf ZE, et al. Genetics of teratozoospermia: back to the head. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 2020; 34: 101473. 33183966
  32. [38]Shimizu Y Kiumura F Kaku S, et al. Successful delivery following ICSI with macrocephalic sperm head syndrome: a case report. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 24: 603– 605. 22503269
  33. [39]Toth A. Reversible toxic effect of salicylazosulfapyridine on semen quality. Fertil Steril 1979; 31: 538– 540. 36307
  34. [40]Chemes EH Rawe YV. Sperm pathology: a step beyond descriptive morphology. Origin, characterization and fertility potential of abnormal sperm phenotypes in infertile men. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9: 405– 428. 14640375
  35. [41]Zhang D Huang WJ Chen GY, et al. Pathogenesis of acephalic spermatozoa syndrome caused by SUN5 variant. Mol Hum Reprod 2021; 27: gaab028. 33848337
  36. [42]Sha Y Liu W Li L, et al. Pathogenic variants in ACTRT1 cause acephalic spermatozoa syndrome. Front Cell Dev Biol 2021; 9: 676246. 34422805 PMC8377740
  37. [43]Liu G Xing X Zhang H, et al. Patients with acephalic spermatozoa syndrome linked to novel TSGA10/PMFBP1 variants have favorable pregnancy outcomes from intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Clin Genet 2021; 100: 334– 339. 34089195
  38. [44]Nie H Tang Y Qin W. Beyond acephalic spermatozoa: the complexity of intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes. Biomed Res Int 2020; 2020: 6279795. 32104701 PMC7035536
  39. [45]Boursier A Boudry A Mitchell V, et al. Results and perinatal outcomes from 189 ICSI cycles of couples with asthenozoospermic men and flagellar defects assessed by transmission electron microscopy. Reprod Biomed Online 2023; 47: 103328. 37742467
  40. [46]Punjabi U Wyns C Mahmoud A, et al. Fifteen years of Belgian experience with external quality assessment of semen analysis. Andrology 2016; 4: 1084– 1093. 27410398
  41. [47]Ghayda RA Cannarella R Calogero AE, et al. Artificial intelligence in andrology: from semen analysis to image diagnostics. World J Mens Health 2024; 42: 39– 61. 37382282 PMC10782130
  42. [48]Cherouveim P Velmahos C Bormann CL. Artificial intelligence for sperm selection-a systematic review. Fertil Steril 2023; 120: 24– 31. 37236418
  43. [49]Goss DM Vasilescu SA Vasilescu PA, et al. Evaluation of an artificial intelligence-facilitated sperm detection tool in azoospermic samples for use in ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online 2024; 49: 103910. 38652944
  44. [50]Lustgarten Guahmich N Borini E Zaninovic N. Improving outcomes of assisted reproductive technologies using artificial intelligence for sperm selection. Fertil Steril 2023; 120: 729– 734. 37307892
  45. [51]Koscinski I Elinati E Fossard C, et al. DPY19L2 deletion as a major cause of globozoospermia. Am J Hum Genet 2011; 88: 344– 350. 21397063 PMC3059416
  46. [52]Kilani Z Ismail R Ghunaim S, et al. Evaluation and treatment of familial globozoospermia in five brothers. Fertil Steril 2004; 82: 1436– 1439. 15533374

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wyns, C., Vogiatzi, P., Saleh, R., Shah, R., & Agarwal, A.
Affiliations
  • Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc (BE)
  • Global Andrology Forum, Moreland Hills, OH, USA
  • Sohag University (EG)
  • Lilavati Hospital & Research Centre (IN)
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Agarwal, Ashok
ORCID
Venue
Therapeutic Advances in Reproductive Health
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2024-01
Volume
18
Pages
26334941241303888-26334941241303888
ISSN
2633-4941 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/26334941241303888
PMC
PMC11624537
OpenAlex
W4405112140
Cited by
6
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3
FWCI
0.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Therapeutic Advances in Reproductive Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Sperm and Testicular Function
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Male Reproductive Health Studies
Keywords
sperm morphology, assisted reproduction, teratozoospermia, male infertility, semen analysis, sperm fertility

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review