Semen Parameters and Sperm DNA Fragmentation as Causes of Recurrent Pregnancy Loss

Objectives To evaluate and compare standard sperm parameters, and sperm DNA fragmentation in seminal ejaculates from men whose partners had a history of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) and in a control group of men who had recently established their fertility. Methods Semen samples from 31 patients w...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inUrology (Ridgewood, N.J.) Vol. 78; no. 4; pp. 792 - 796
Main Authors Brahem, Sonia, Mehdi, Meriem, Landolsi, Hanène, Mougou, Soumaya, Elghezal, Hatem, Saad, Ali
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York, NY Elsevier Inc 01.10.2011
Elsevier
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Objectives To evaluate and compare standard sperm parameters, and sperm DNA fragmentation in seminal ejaculates from men whose partners had a history of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) and in a control group of men who had recently established their fertility. Methods Semen samples from 31 patients with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss and 20 men with proven fertility were analyzed according to World Health Organization guidelines. Sperm DNA fragmentation was detected by the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase–mediated dUTP nick-end labeling assay. Results When sperm quality of the control group was compared with that of the RPL group, a significant difference was observed in sperm motility, but not in other parameters. The mean number of sperm cells with fragmented DNA was significantly increased in the RPL group (32.22 ± 6.14%) compared with control donors (10.20 ± 2.1%). Conclusions Our data indicate that sperm from men with a history of RPL have a higher incidence of DNA damage and poor motility than sperm from a control group, and this can explain in part the pregnancy loss in these patients.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0090-4295
1527-9995
DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2011.05.049