Original Articles

Semen Characteristics and Embryo Outcomes in IVF

Abstract

Objective: Infertility is a global health challenge, affecting many couples worldwide. Male infertility contributes to 20–50% of cases. Although semen analysis parameters are widely regarded as key indicators of male fertility, their association with in vitro fertilization (IVF) success remains debated. This study evaluated the relationship between specific semen parameters and grade A embryo formation in IVF among infertile men.
Materials and methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at a referral infertility center from March 2019 to March 2021, involving 104 men diagnosed with male-factor infertility. Semen parameters, including sperm count, motility, morphology, and volume, were analyzed. The primary outcome was the formation of at least one grade A embryo, defined as a successful IVF outcome. Statistical analyses included chi-square tests and logistic regression.
Results: The median age differed significantly between the successful and unsuccessful IVF groups
(36 vs. 38 years, p=0.050). No significant differences were observed in semen volume, sperm count, motility, or morphology between groups. Logistic regression revealed that younger age was associated with a higher likelihood of grade A embryo formation (OR=0.935, p=0.012), whereas semen parameters showed no significant association with embryo quality.
Conclusion: This study found no significant association between semen parameters and grade A embryo formation in IVF, suggesting that traditional semen analysis has limited predictive value for embryo quality. Although younger age was associated with a higher likelihood of success, the effect size was small (OR=0.935, p=0.012), and its clinical impact may be limited. These findings highlight the potential for successful embryo development despite suboptimal semen parameters and underscore the need for a broader approach to assessing male fertility beyond standard semen analysis.

1. Morshed-Behbahani B, Lamyian M, Joulaei H, Montazeri A. Analysis and exploration of infertility policies in Iran: a study protocol. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):5.
2. Thonneau P, Marchand S, Tallec A, Ferial ML, Ducot B, Lansac J, et al. Incidence and main causes of infertility in a resident population (1,850,000) of three French regions (1988-1989). Hum Reprod. 1991;6(6):811-6.
3. Shih KW, Shen PY, Wu CC, Kang YN. Testicular versus percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration for patients with obstructive azoospermia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Androl Urol. 2019;8(6):631.
4. Hull M, Glazener C, Kelly N, Conway D, Foster P, Hinton R, et al. Population study of causes, treatment, and outcome of infertility. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985;291(6510):1693-7.
5. Jain M, Singh M. Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Techniques. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023.
6. Aramesh K. Population, abortion, contraception, and the relation between biopolitics, bioethics, and biolaw in Iran. Dev World Bioeth. 2024;24(2):129-34.
7. Boitrelle F, Shah R, Saleh R, Henkel R, Kandil H, Chung E, et al. The Sixth Edition of the WHO Manual for Human Semen Analysis: A Critical Review and SWOT Analysis. Life (Basel). 2021;11(12):1368.
8. Santi D, Spaggiari G, Morini D, Melli B, Dalla Valentina L, Aguzzoli L, et al. Which sperm parameter limits could really guide the clinical decision in assisted reproduction? Andrology. 2023;11(1):143-54.
9. Okada FK, Andretta RR, Spaine DM. One day is better than four days of ejaculatory abstinence for sperm function. Reprod Fertil. 2020;1(1):1-10.
10. Belala R, Bourahmoune D, Mimoune N. The use of computer assisted sperm analysis (CASA) in domestic animal reproduction: A review. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg. 2024 ;30(6):741-51.
11. Zhao Y-Y, Yu Y, Zhang X-W. Overall blastocyst quality, trophectoderm grade, and inner cell mass grade predict pregnancy outcome in euploid blastocyst transfer cycles. Chin Med J (Engl). 2018;131(11):1261-7.
12. Heidary Z, Masoumi M, Dashtkoohi M, Sharifinejad N, Tarzjani MD, Ghaemi M, et al. The association of AMH level with the number and quality of oocytes in women undergoing IVF/ICSI: a single-center study. J Reprod Infertil. 2024;25(1):38.
13. Tesarik J, Junca AM, Hazout A, Aubriot FX, Nathan C, Cohen-Bacrie P, et al. Embryos with high implantation potential after intracytoplasmic sperm injection can be recognized by a simple, non-invasive examination of pronuclear morphology. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(6):1396-9.
14. Milardi D, Grande G, Sacchini D, Astorri AL, Pompa G, Giampietro A, et al. Male fertility and reduction in semen parameters: a single tertiary‐care center experience. Int J Endocrinol. 2012;2012(1):649149.
15. Danis RB, Samplaski MK. Sperm morphology: history, challenges, and impact on natural and assisted fertility. Curr Urol Rep. 2019;20:1-8.
16. Shingshetty L, Cameron NJ, McLernon DJ, Bhattacharya S. Predictors of success after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2024;121(5):742-51.
17. Kohn TP, Kohn JR, Lamb DJ. Role of sperm morphology in deciding between various assisted reproduction technologies. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(3):311-3.
18. Donnelly ET, Lewis SE, McNally JA, Thompson W. In vitro fertilization and pregnancy rates: the influence of sperm motility and morphology on IVF outcome. Fertil Steril. 1998;70(2):305-14.
19. Del Giudice F, Belladelli F, Chen T, Glover F, Mulloy EA, Kasman AM, et al. The association of impaired semen quality and pregnancy rates in assisted reproduction technology cycles: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Andrologia. 2022;54(6):e14409.
20. Villani MT, Morini D, Spaggiari G, Falbo AI, Melli B, La Sala GB, 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(2):310-21.
21. Del Giudice F, Belladelli F, Chen T, Glover F, Mulloy EA, Kasman AM, et al. The association of impaired semen quality and pregnancy rates in assisted reproduction technology cycles: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Andrologia. 2022;54(6):e14409.
22. Agarwal A, Sharma R, Gupta S, Finelli R, Parekh N, Selvam MKP, 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(3):347.
23. Liu D, Baker H. Evaluation and assessment of semen for IVF/ICSI. Asian J Androl. 2002;4(4):281-5.
24. Papathanasiou A, Bhattacharya S, editors. Prognostic factors for IVF success: diagnostic testing and evidence-based interventions. Semin Reprod Med; 2015: Thieme Medical Publishers.
25. Oehninger S, Franken DR, Ombelet W. Sperm functional tests. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(6):1528-33.
26. Lu X-M, Liu Y-B, Zhang D-D, Cao X, Zhang T-C, Liu M, et al. Effect of advanced paternal age on reproductive outcomes in IVF cycles of non-male-factor infertility: a retrospective cohort study. Asian
J Androl. 2023;25(2):245-51.
Files
IssueVol 19, No 3 (September 2025) QRcode
SectionOriginal Articles
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/jfrh.v19i3.20061
Keywords
Fertilization in Vitro Semen Analysis Infertility

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Dashtkoohi M, Haddadi M, Saeedinia M, Haghollahi F, Masoumi M, Heidary Z. Semen Characteristics and Embryo Outcomes in IVF. J Family Reprod Health. 2025;19(3):226-231.