Infertility
Male factor infertility
waitingimpatient · 08/06/2016 15:54
Hi
Just had a (shock) diagnosis of MFI
Does anybody know anything about this and does ICSI always help/work?
Last year a sample was normal but didn't thaw well which we thought was a bit odd. Thought no more of it until this latest SA (asthenozoospermia) is what is written in report and I don't understand why??? As if my PCOS, endometriosis and adenomyosis wasn't enough, now this and we thought "oh at least dh is ok" ....famous last words
In addition to this for three months he has taken supplements :
Coq10
Vitamin c
Zinc
Well man conception
Dha supplement
Eating healthily and he had given up alcohol completely. So I'm stumped as to what's caused this issue.
Any advice gratefully received as I don't know what we can do to improve this ?
Going to repeat SA but not confident :( just hoping ICSI is the answer?
Skrinson · 08/06/2016 17:37
Hi waiting. I just started a thread earlier with similar issues to you I think. I had a laparosocopy yesterday where they removed some endo, which I didn't realise I had, I also have pcos.
What was wrong with his sample? What was it that led to the mfi diagnosis for him?
Just5minswithDacre · 11/06/2016 03:25
Thought no more of it until this latest SA (asthenozoospermia) is what is written in report and I don't understand why??
We had the same Dx. (Skrinson it means poor motility and morphology). I don't think there's a simple answer to why - most cases are idiopathic. We decided not to go mad with supplements as the evidence isn't really there. Just zinc and ACE vits.
ICSI success is based on a combination of all the relevant factors so also very hard to predict. At least, that's my understanding.
Have you got the actual lab numbers? That might give you a pointer on the male side of ICSI. Also ages and how successfully female factors are being tackled.
waitingimpatient · 11/06/2016 20:45
We only had a SA repeated as dh often works away and at short notice so we always need a sample frozen just in case....
Last year he was away (luckily in the UK!) and the sample was thawed but thawed v v badly and was not possible to use it. Dh had to drive miles to get back in time to give a fresh sample. Very stressful. When initial SA done it was fine apparently and we thought it just didn't thaw well. Discarded the rest of the frozen sample and decided we would do a new sample for freezing at start of new cycle.
They analyse it anyway and it came back with this poor motility and only suitable for ICSI
It's doubly annoying as we've both done three months on supplements and dh gave up alcohol. Since this result he's given up caffeine too as we can't work out what's gone wrong. Repeat SA next week.
It's just an added issue we didn't need. Dh is 36
Numbers from reports are (I tried looking it up but I'm not entirely sure what the values really mean and to me both samples look similar but one was ok and the other not. Although the ok one didn't thaw well)
Report 1 (from last year)
Volume 6.50
Appearance :normal
Viscosity: normal
Liquefaction : complete
Density 42.00
Total count 273.00
Motility progressive 35.0%
Non progressive 8.0
Immotile 57.0%
Normal forms 5.00%
'Normozoospermia'
Report 2 (last week)
Volume 6.20
App: normal
Vis: normal
Liq: complete
Density 42.00
Total count:260.40
Motility progressive 51.0%
Non progressive 13.0%
Immotile 49.0%
Normal forms 4.0%
- round cells
+debris
'Asthenozoospermia'
I may be looking at all the wrong things but the samples look nearly the same? What am I missing that made the first normal and second not???
friends123 · 11/06/2016 21:01
Hi waitingimpatient,
I personally can't see much wrong with either of them from what I remember ; count is 20,000. Motility progressive >40% and I assume normal forms is the morphology and that should be >4% according to guidlines.
My OH had one normal and one not and really none of them looked completely average, but as a whole they still thought it should be enough.
Just5minswithDacre · 11/06/2016 21:26
The motility is okay by WHO parameters and Normal Forms (morphology) is just bang on the minimum normal value, so that's a confusing diagnosis going by my (completely lay) understanding.
waitingimpatient · 11/06/2016 21:50
This is why I'm so confused 
Both don't seem 'terrible' and look very similar yet different diagnosis?? The first sample really didn't thaw well though and I wonder now if perhaps it wasn't great as they seemed surprised? The fresh sample dh rushed to do was fine though and worked with IVF not ICSI for that cycle
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.