Poor Acceptance Rate for Semen Donors to a Private Cryobank in Nigeria

Akinrinola OA, Melie NA and Ajayi RA

Abstract

A retrospective analysis of sixty one prospective donors who visited the cryobank in person from August 1999 to December 2001 was done. The study evaluated the acceptance rate of prospective semen donors and semen characteristics in order to assess the fertility potential of the supposedly normal population of young men. The outcome of the various screening processes – history taking, infection screening, blood grouping and Hb genotype assessment, semen analyses (pre-freeze and post-thaw), and post-quarantine (six months after production of last sample) infection – was analysed. Out of the 61 enquiries, 9 (14.8%) donors were recruited, 7 (77.8%) of whom were less than 25 years old. Fourteen (22.9%) donors had sperm concentrations greater than 60 ' 106ml, 31 (50.8%) had motility greater than 60% and 17 (27.8%) had normal forms greater than 30%. Six (9.8%) of the donors were unable to masturbate and thus were disqualified, while only one donor (6.1%) failed to show up for a re-test after the completion of the quarantine period. Twenty one (38.2%) donors had low semen values based on the WHO reference value. We conclude that a high proportion of prospective semen donors may have sub-optimal semen parameters, and that using strict criteria, poor acceptance rates for donors is observed in a semen donation programme. (Afr J Reprod Health 2003; 7[1]: 12–16)

 

Keywords: Semen donors, cryobank, semen quality

Full Text:

XML

References

HFEA. Annual report of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, London, 1996.

Barratt CLR and Cooke ID. Donor Insemination. London: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 231.

British Fertility Society. Report on payment of semen donors, 1999.

Murray C and Golombok S. Oocyte and semen donation; a survey of UK licensed centres. Hum Reprod 2000; 15(10): 2133– 2139.

Carlsen E, Giwercman A, Keiding N, et al. Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years. Br Med J 1992; 609–613.

Auger J, Kuntsmann JM, Czglik F, et al. Decline in semen quality among fertile men in Paris during the past 20 years. N Engl J Med 1995; 332(5): 281–285.

Irvine S, Cawood E, Richardson D, et al. Evidence of deteriorating semen quality in the United Kingdom. Br Med J 1996; 312: 462–471.

Bujan L, Mansat A, Pontonnier, et al. Time series analysis of sperm concentration in fertile men in Toulouse, France between 1977 and 1992. Br MedJ 1996; 312(7029): 471–472.

Vierula M, Niemi M, Keiski, et al. High and unchanged sperm counts in Finnish men. Int J Androl 1996; 19: 11–17.

McLaughlin EA, Day J, Harrison S, et al. Recruitment of gamete donors and payment of expenses. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 1130–1132.

HFEA. Code of Practice. 4th edition. London: Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, 1998.

British Andrology Society. British Andrology Society guidelines for the screening of semen donors for donor insemination. Hum Reprod 1999; 14(7): 1823–1826.

Hummel WP and Talbert LM. Current management of a donor insemination program. FertilSteril 1989; 51(6): 919–929.

Chauchan M, Barratt CLR, Cooke S, et al. A protocol for recruitment and screening of semen donors for an artificial insemination by donor programme. Hum Reprod 1988; 3(7): 873–876.

Van Waeleghem K, De Clercq N, Vermeulen L, et al. Deterioration of sperm quality in young healthy Belgian men. Hum Reprod 1996; 11(2): 352–359.

World Health Organization. Laboratory manual for the examination of human serum and sperm cervical mucus interaction. 4th edition. London: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

McGowan MP, Baker HW, Kovacs GT, et al. Selection of high fertility donors for artificial insemination programmes. ClinReprod 1983; 2(4): 269–274.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.