What is the current WHO guideline on SA's?

[dan-o]

I'm confused about SA's again (sorry!)

I had a look at the who website, but can;t make much sense of what is the actual guideline these days...

Does anyone know what it is?

 

[LaRockera]

Hi hon,

we got our SA results today. Keep in mind that there are stricter standards than WHO's.

For example.

WHO dictates that a good sperm morphology consists of at least 30% of healthy sperm. But according to Krueger's standards, which are much stricter and a lot of labs follow, an ideal healthy sperm morphology is 14%.

I think WHO also dictates that semen volume needs to be 2ml or over; but the absolute minimum is really 1.5

Likewise, good sperm motility is defined as 60%, but again, the lowest minimum is in fact 50%.

One thing I've learnt from today's lesson is that one should not panic before consulting a urologist. When I saw that my hubby had a healthy sperm morphology of 16% I freaked out. Then I noticed on the analysis that anything above 14% is considered normal. I looked it up in the internet and saw that according to Krueger, 14% or more is indeed considered fertile.

 

[LaRockera]

I just saw your other thread with aspect to SA that WHO have changed their morphology standards? That they've set the lowest minimum to 5%?

*goes to search.*

 

[LaRockera]

I found this.

Hope it's a bit helpful!

 

[fluffystar]

I found this.

Hope it's a bit helpful!

ah ha... you beat me to it! I had that blog in mind too!!!
love fluffy x

 

[floofymad]

Thanks. That's really interesting.... I'm a little confused though about these numbers etc and how they affect your chances....
For example, I read in my Zita West book that an average Sperm count is 60-80 mill. My DH was given 23 mill, which he was told was completely normal. But doesn't this mean that we have significantly less chance of conceiving each month than someone with a much higher count?....
I was also talking to a friend who has been through the whole IVF thing herself, and she said she'd read somewhere that a count of at least 47 mill is needed to have an ok chance of conceiving each month. She couldn't remember where she'd read this unfortunately but sounded really sure.
This might sound stupid, but does it mean that if you're in the 'normal' range then they would expect you to keep trying, but the lower it is in the 'normal' range the less your chances are and you'll have to keep trying for ages?.......
Does that all make sense?!............

 

[floofymad]

bump ??

 

[LaRockera]

See, this is what drives me mad. So many 'sources' stating different things, driving us close to insanity.

A man is considered fertile as long as his results are above the reference values. Mind you, not 'sub-fertile', but fertile.

I was talking to my godfather who happens to be a urologist, and he said that nowadays, a lot of 'docs' are telling couples their only way out is IVF, while in reality they can still conceive naturally, although it may take them a little longer. From what I've gathered by his words, it's all relative. If you can do something to ameliorate the results, that's even better.

He also told me that 85% of men have a vericocele vein that once fixed, it can improve a lot of things. So first thing a man with an average, or discouraging SA needs to do, is an ultrasound for that vein.

There are so many things to take into consideration. A man with low sperm count but excellent motility or morphology still has high chances. Likewise, a man with bad morphology but good sperm count and motility, can still make a woman pregnant naturally. And even in the vast majorities of worst-case scenarios, IVF can do the trick.

Floofymad, there are so many things to be taken into consideration. Our fertility, theirs, stress, and most important, luck, or else chance. They have millions, but it only takes one.

One, dammit!

 

[floofymad]

Thanks Rockera! I just wish that one spermy would get its lazy a** off its barker lounger and make it's way up there to that eggy!
So, as long as you're in the 'normal' range then they wouldn't do anything and would expect you to conceive naturally, but if it's lower down then it's gunna take you longer?...

 

[dan-o]

Funny you should say that larockera, My OH has a massive varicocele.
On a bad day, it's almost as big as his left testicle!

My GP said it will have no effect on fertility... but I'm not sure I belive that & we will be quizzing the FS about it on tuesday! x

 

[LaRockera]

Thanks Rockera! I just wish that one spermy would get its lazy a** off its barker lounger and make it's way up there to that eggy!

Tell me about it!

So, as long as you're in the 'normal' range then they wouldn't do anything and would expect you to conceive naturally, but if it's lower down then it's gunna take you longer?...

Have a look at the link posted above. From what I gathered, according to that doctor's blog, the men that defined the normal values managed to make their partners pregnant within a year.

So I suppose it all depends on luck/chance. 90% of all fertile couples (and the men above were tagged as 'fertile', not subfertile) will conceive within 18 months, so there you have it.

 

[LaRockera]

Funny you should say that larockera, My OH has a massive varicocele.
On a bad day, it's almost as big as his left testicle!

My GP said it will have no effect on fertility... but I'm not sure I belive that & we will be quizzing the FS about it on tuesday! x

The varicocele is one of the most common causes of male infertility. And it's really easy to fix as well. It affects almost 85% of male population, and it's a one-day operation. In fact, it's one of the easiest ways to ameliorate your SA results!

How am I so confident? My godfather is an established urologist, managing the respective section of one of the biggest private hospitals in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varicocele

Go consult someone else, hon. I can't believe they've told you that!