4.5 Article

Male Inflammatory Parameters Are not Useful to Predict the Outcomes of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection: Results from a Cross-Sectional Study

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF MENS HEALTH
Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages 347-354

Publisher

KOREAN SOC SEXUAL MEDICINE & ANDROLOGY
DOI: 10.5534/wjmh.180110

Keywords

Assisted reproductive techniques; Fertilization; Infertility; Inflammation; Semen analysis; Sperm injections, intracytoplasmic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The relationship between male systemic inflammation and fertility seems intriguing, but no data about its impact on the assisted reproductive technology outcomes has been reported. Here, we aimed to evaluate the prognostic role of male systemic inflammatory parameters in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) outcomes prediction, in couples undergoing an ovum donation program. Materials and Methods: From January 2016 to December 2017, one hundred-ten couples were considered for this cross-sectional study. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte-to-eosinophil ratio (MER), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), seminal parameters, fertilization rate (FR), cleavage rate (CR), pregnancy rate (PR) were evaluated. Male patients were divided into Group A with FR <= 70%, Group B with FR >70%. Results: Overall, FR was 74.5%, CR 90.9%, PR 41.8%. Group A included 43 patients, Group B 67 men. Group A showed a median NLR of 1.55, PLR of 106.09, MER of 2.33. Group B reported a median NLR of 1.64, PLR 109.0, MER 2.76. We found no statistically differences between two groups with respect to NLR, PLR, MER (p=0.90, p=0.70, p=0.96, respectively). The age-adjusted linear regression analysis demonstrated only a relationship between NLR and sperm motility count (r=-0.02; p<0.05). Using the univariate logistic regression analysis, we found no significant associations. Conclusions: We did not find any relationship between ICSI outcomes and male inflammation parameters.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available