SA MORPHOLOGY: POST YOUR DOCTOR's COMMENT HERE

[Snowglobe21]

Hi heavenly,

Is the total count 43 million or is that per mL making total count 86 mil?

 

[Snowglobe21]

Reason im asking is because your morph is totally fine according to WHO guidelines released October 2010 so if he took his test before that, that is why they prob said 6% is bad. Now anything over 4-5% is considered normal and the average is 14%. Id say if 43 mill is the total count, that is more likely the problem with the low morph not helping, but not being the absolutes reason your not concieving.

 

[heavenly]

Hi heavenly,

Is the total count 43 million or is that per mL making total count 86 mil?

Reason im asking is because your morph is totally fine according to WHO guidelines released October 2010 so if he took his test before that, that is why they prob said 6% is bad. Now anything over 4-5% is considered normal and the average is 14%. Id say if 43 mill is the total count, that is more likely the problem with the low morph not helping, but not being the absolutes reason your not concieving.

Hi Snowglobe21, thank you so much for replying.

The report says

Total Count - 43 millions/ml

My FS said that was fine - but I get confused, does that make it any clearer?

Thank you for filling me in re morphology, yes his test was pre October 2010. He will be taking another test next week. If we have to go down the IVF/ICSI route, I need all the up to date info I can get. He is taking Wellman Conception tablets.

 

[jenbridges]

lol, yeah that is clear I guess. I just get so confused with how these tests say total count put then the number/ml. that always makes it sound like its per millileter haha. Either way, anything over 39 million in total nowadays is good so whether its 43 or 86, it doesn't really matter as both numbers are in the good category. I'd say you have nothing too worry about with your husbands sperm. Of fertile men, 10% of them had fewer abnormal forms than your husband. To clarify, 1/10 men who concieved a baby within less than a year had less 5.5% or less normal sperms. You can find that in the 2010 guidelines I posted around page 225.

 

[jenbridges]

Thank you snowglobe for posting all this info. I posted a freak out threat earlier before seeing all this and your sources and stuff are great. If you need help maintaing this thread, let me know! Hope you don't mind me answering your question for you heavenly!

 

[heavenly]

lol, yeah that is clear I guess. I just get so confused with how these tests say total count put then the number/ml. that always makes it sound like its per millileter haha.

I know what you mean! lol

Actually it does say on the Normal Values at the bottom of the report that the sperm count should be between

20-150 millions per ml

The results at the top of the report said 43 millions/ml so I assume that it is 86 million?

Oh who knows!!!

 

[loopy013]

Hi ladies,

What an amazing thread! My DH has low morphology too and its soo frustrating with all the conflicting advice.

My DH's morphology is 2% the NHS circled 'fertility treatment needed' on the referral form but there is a 6 month wait just to see the consultant to discuss our results. So we went to a private fertility clinic open evening and spoke to one of the people there. He was unconcerned with the 2% morphology reading and said that he takes it with a pinch of salt! Especially as we have been pregnant before even though it was 10+ years ago he said that male fertility doesn't decline in that time like womens.

So he either thinks there may be a problem with me or we would be under the 'unexplained fertility' group also. I'm so confused with it all the NHS and the private clinic seem to say different things. I've had my AMH blood test done last week so jsut waiting on the results of that and we have our first consultation at the private clinic a week on wednesday so I'm hoping I'll find out more information then.

I was happy going ahead with fertility treatement when I thought that we had a male factor issue but now he's said unexplained fertility I can help but worry that we should give it longer? Having said that we've been TTC for 18 months now and I don't want to put it off nay longer. I'm 30 and my DH is 32 soon also we've also wanted more than one child so I want it to happen sooner rather than later so that it isn't too late for us to try for a second.

Surely 2% morphology is going to have a effect on us getting pregnant though? Why else would they bother to measure it? I hope I'll have some more answers soon x

 

[Snowglobe21]

Hi Loopy, thanks for posting! That is reassuring news that you managed to concieve once with 2%. How long were you two trying for your first?

 

[lucylou7]

Hi ladies,

What an amazing thread! My DH has low morphology too and its soo frustrating with all the conflicting advice.

My DH's morphology is 2% the NHS circled 'fertility treatment needed' on the referral form but there is a 6 month wait just to see the consultant to discuss our results. So we went to a private fertility clinic open evening and spoke to one of the people there. He was unconcerned with the 2% morphology reading and said that he takes it with a pinch of salt! Especially as we have been pregnant before even though it was 10+ years ago he said that male fertility doesn't decline in that time like womens.

So he either thinks there may be a problem with me or we would be under the 'unexplained fertility' group also. I'm so confused with it all the NHS and the private clinic seem to say different things. I've had my AMH blood test done last week so jsut waiting on the results of that and we have our first consultation at the private clinic a week on wednesday so I'm hoping I'll find out more information then.

I was happy going ahead with fertility treatement when I thought that we had a male factor issue but now he's said unexplained fertility I can help but worry that we should give it longer? Having said that we've been TTC for 18 months now and I don't want to put it off nay longer. I'm 30 and my DH is 32 soon also we've also wanted more than one child so I want it to happen sooner rather than later so that it isn't too late for us to try for a second.

Surely 2% morphology is going to have a effect on us getting pregnant though? Why else would they bother to measure it? I hope I'll have some more answers soon x

#

Hi Loopy hope you dont mind me asking aswell how long did you TTC for your first? we are TTC and have been for 15 months and my OH has 2% morphology.. i dont get it as first FS said there was no problem with OH SA and second time they were like his morphology was a little low.. i just dont know any more.. they have said we are un explained and our best option is IVF what have they said about you ? thanks Lucy x

 

[loopy013]

Hi both,

Really sorry if I wasn't very clear with my first post. To clarify me and DH got pregnant (over 10 years ago) and we only had unprotected sex ONCE!!!
This is why we are so confused now, there is no way of knowing what morphology my DH had all those years ago. We've been TTC for 18 months now and when I spoke to the guy at the clinic he said that if my DH could get me pregnant all those years ago without any trouble then he doesn't think the morphology is a problem. He said that male fertility hardly changes throughout the years. So he thinks the problem is either with me (I'm still going through tests) or we are unexplained fertility.

I never thought we would have trouble conceiving because of how quickly it happened before so I postponed us starting a family as I thought is would happen straight away. Now we're getting really worried and so I think we'll be doing IVF/ICSI split. I had my AMH blood test done last week so should get the results this week, I just hope it isnt really low and means that my fertility has taken a nose dive! We've got our 1st consultation on 15th Feb so I'll be asking all the questions under the sun about morphology I'll let you know what they say.

Like all of you on this thread all over levels of DH's SA are fine, its just the morphology that is the issue x

 

[Snowglobe21]

Wow, lucky first try eh! Yeah, isolated low morphology is really odd. I almost think they should just through the Kruger method out the window because it seems so conflicted. Every study seems to show something different!

That's funny your fertility specialist appointment is on the 15th as ours is too now! I'll post everything that is said there. Also, DH did his second SA this morning at 8AM. We abstained one extra day, but that hopefully won't lower the morphology. We are going to wait until the FS appointment for the results though, rather than having him go into his family doctor who knows nothing about SA's and misread the first one quite significantly.

 

[CrazyCatLady]

Well I'd just like to add a little encouragement here and say that I got pregnant a few months after my husband was diagnosed with 3% morphology (he did have a high count and good motility). But I don't believe low morph is the end all diagnoses.

 

[charbaby]

First semen analysis Results

viscosity: liquid
ph:8.1
volume:1.8ml
total count : 82.5 x 10^9/L
rapid motility : 44%
sluggish motility :2%
non-progressive motility : 3%
immotile : 51%
normal forms:2%


2nd semen results

viscosity: Gel
ph: 8.5
volume: 1.8
total count: 71.0 x 10^9/L
rapid motility: 56%
sluggish motility: 0%
non-progressive motility: 15%
Immotile: 29%
normal forms: 2.5%

over all i think these results are better than the previous ones?
What do you think?

 

[charbaby]

anyone?

 

[Snowglobe21]

Hi charbaby, yes, the motility looks significantly better so thats good! As for the morph, I would probably say it hasn't really changed from the last sample, as .5% isn't really a huge difference so its probably just chance that it was a bit higher. That said, I've read many blogs with people pregnant with 2% morphology so that shouldn't really rule you out. Everything else besides morph is normal which is good.

Do you have any problems prohibiting you from conceiving?

 

[tigerlilly]

Hi ladies. Dh's first sa came back at 5% normal forms and the 2nd at 3%!

First test results

elapsed time between sample and analysis 80 mins (dh delivered sample within 30 mins of production)

volume - 3ml
total density - 142.7 millions / ml

appearance - normal
liquefaction - incomplete
consistency - viscous

PH - 8.1

motility
rapid 49%
slow 3%
non- progressive motility 7%
immotile 39%

agglutination o%
spermMAR -- %

Morphology

normal sperm 5%

sperm with defects 95%

head defects 95%

neck/midpiece defects 5%

Tail Defects 10%

Conclusion: Teratozoospermia

 

[Snowglobe21]

Thank you crazycatlady for the words of encouragement! Congratulations to you!

Tigerlilly: what did your doctor say about the results?

 

[charbaby]

Hi charbaby, yes, the motility looks significantly better so thats good! As for the morph, I would probably say it hasn't really changed from the last sample, as .5% isn't really a huge difference so its probably just chance that it was a bit higher. That said, I've read many blogs with people pregnant with 2% morphology so that shouldn't really rule you out. Everything else besides morph is normal which is good.

Do you have any problems prohibiting you from conceiving?

Hiya thanks, and yeah i have pcos so we think thats all thats stopping us x

 

[tigerlilly]

Thank you crazycatlady for the words of encouragement! Congratulations to you!

Tigerlilly: what did your doctor say about the results?

we had to have a second test which was worse then the first, i'm trying to find the result but not sure where they are. We're waiting for my results and a referal.

 

[tigerlilly]

Well I'd just like to add a little encouragement here and say that I got pregnant a few months after my husband was diagnosed with 3% morphology (he did have a high count and good motility). But I don't believe low morph is the end all diagnoses.

congratulations