Sperm transport in the human female reproductive tract in relation to semen analysis characteristics and time of ovulation
Abstract
Summary.: Laparoscopic sperm recovery from the pouch of Douglas and tubal fimbriae was performed in 64 infertile couples. Spermatozoa were recovered from 16/35 couples investigated after AIH, and from 13/29 couples post coitum. The method of insemination had no effect on the result, which was positive in 45·3% of all couples, although AIH did result in significantly larger numbers of peritoneal spermatozoa. The number of peritoneal spermatozoa did not show any direct correlation with the number inseminated, but there were reductions along the tract of 5·83 (±1·14 s.d.) orders of magnitude for total sperm count, and 5·52 (±1·21 s.d.) for the number of motile spermatozoa. Only sperm motility had a significant influence on the success of sperm transport; spermatozoa were recovered from patients with sperm densities as low as 3·0 and 3·5 × 106/ml, but with 56 and 44% motile spermatozoa. No influence of cycle day within the range ±4 days of ovulation on sperm transport was found. In 45 couples, routine semen analyses were apparently completely normal, but the incidence of sperm recovery was still only 49% (22/45), suggesting that a failure of sperm transport may have been a significant causative factor in their infertility.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Selection for morphologically normal human spermatozoa within the cervical mucus exists.
“Previously, Mortimer and Templeton2425 confirmed the existence of selection for morphologically normal human spermatozoa within the cervical mucus.”
From Men with a complete absence of normal sperm morphology exhibit high rates of success without assisted reproduction (2017) · cites this paper as [25]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Physiology: Sperm numbers and distribution within the human Fallopian tube around ovulation
Williams, M., Hill, C. J., Scudamore, I., Dunphy, B., Cooke, I. D., & Barratt, C. L. R. (1993) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137975 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Smith, R., Kovac, J., Cajipe, M., Lamb, D., & Lipshultz, L. (2017) · Asian Journal of Andrology · doi:10.4103/1008-682x.189211 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mortimer, D., & Templeton, A. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- ORCID
- Mortimer, D.
- Venue
- Reproduction
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1982-03-01
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 401-408
- ISSN
- 1470-1626 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-7899
- OpenAlex
- W2140240434
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Reproduction (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Sperm and Testicular Function
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Biology and Fertility
- Keywords
- sperm transport, female reproductive tract, pouch of Douglas, sperm motility, semen analysis, artificial insemination by husband, infertility
- MeSH terms
- Female, Genitalia, Female, Humans, Insemination, Artificial, Homologous, Male, Ovulation, Laparoscopy, Sperm Count, Sperm Motility, Sperm Transport, Spermatozoa, Time Factors, Uterus
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