4.1 Article

Influence of ejaculatory abstinence period on semen quality of 5165 normozoospermic and oligozoospermic Nigerian men: A retrospective study

Journal

HEALTH SCIENCE REPORTS
Volume 5, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.722

Keywords

ejaculatory abstinence; male fertility; Nigeria; sperm count; sperm motility; sperm quality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the semen quality in normozoospermic and oligozoospermic semen samples of a homogenous Nigerian population. The results showed that ejaculatory abstinence days (EAD) affected sperm quality in both groups, but with varying impacts.
Background and Aims Several studies have shown that the length of ejaculatory abstinence alters sperm quality. However, the available data are conflicting and none seems to exist in a Nigerian population. The present study aims to compare the semen quality in normozoospermic and oligozoospermic semen samples of a homogenous Nigerian population, following varying ejaculatory abstinence days (EAD); less than 2, 2-3, and 3-7 days. Methods The present retrospective study included 5165 semen samples collected over 5 years, from April 2015 to April 2020. Results In normozoospermic samples, sperm count and total sperm count were significantly higher in prolonged EAD. In oligozoospermic patients, semen volume significantly increased with prolonged EAD, while sperm count, total sperm count, and progressive motility were significantly reduced with prolonged EAD. In addition, EAD and sperm volume positively correlated in oligozoospermic patients. Conclusion Our findings indicate that EAD affects sperm quality in both normozoospermic and oligozoospermic men with varying impacts. Prolonged EAD increased sperm count and total sperm count in normozoospermic patients, while EAD increased semen volume but reduced sperm count, total sperm count, and progressive motility in oligozoospermic patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available