The Effect of Age, Sperm Freezing, and Washing on Intrauterine Insemination Outcome: a Retrospective Analysis

  • Moungala Lionel Wildy Androcryos Andrology Laboratory, Johannesburg, South Africa
Keywords: Aging, Artificial insemination, Cryopreservation, Semen quality


Age and semen quality can significantly affect the outcome of intrauterine insemination treatment. However, few studies have evaluated the effect of age, semen cryopreservation, and washing on intrauterine insemination outcomes. The current study evaluates the effects of woman age and semen donor age, semen processing, and freezing on intrauterine insemination outcomes. Significant negative correlations were found between semen donors’ age and sperm concentration, progressive motility, and normal morphology. Donors aged less than or equal to 30 years had better semen quality compared to those aged above 30 years. Significant higher semen viscosity, semen volume, total sperm count, progressive motility, total progressively motile count, normal morphology, and total normal sperm count were observed in fresh semen samples of donors who had positive pregnancies after intrauterine insemination. Furthermore, significantly higher post-wash progressive motility was obtained in donors who had positive pregnancies after intrauterine insemination. The results of this study provide insight into the eligibility in terms of age and semen characteristics of patients seeking intrauterine insemination. 


Download data is not yet available.


Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Infertility Around The Globe: New Thinking On Gender, Reproductive Technologies, And Global Movements In The 21st Century. Human Reproduction Update. 2015; 21: 411–426.

Allahbadia GN. Intrauterine Insemination: Fundamentals Revisited. Journal Of Obstetrics And Gynaecology. 2017; 67: 385–392.

Zafar M, Jameel T, Abdullah KN. Impact Of Intrauterine Insemination As First Line Treatment Of Subfertility. Journal Of Pakistan Medical Association. 2007; 57(3): 133-136.

Ombelet. Evidence-Based Recommendations For IUI In Daily Practice. Middle East Fertility Society Journal. 2013; 18(2): 74-77.

Bahadur G, Homburg R. Growing Body Of Evidence Supports Intrauterine Insemination As First Line Treatment And Rejects Unfounded Concerns About Its Efficacy, Risks And Cost Effectiveness. JBRA Assisted Reproduction. 2019; 23(1): 62-67.

Almaslami F, Aljunid SM. Cost-Effectiveness Of Assisted Reproductive Technologies In Saudi Arabia: Comparing In Vitro Fertilization With Intrauterine Insemination. SAGE Open Medicine. 2020; 8: 2050312120931988.

Van Voorhis B. Effect Of The Total Motile Sperm Count On The Efficacy And Cost-Effectiveness Of Intrauterine Insemination And In Vitro Fertilization. Fertility And Sterility. 2001; 75: 661–668.

Starosta A, Gordon CE, Hornstein MD. Predictive Factors For Intrauterine Insemination Outcomes: A Review. Fertility Research And Practice. 2020; 6(1): 1-11.

Nuojua-Huttunen S. Intrauterine Insemination Treatment In Subfertility: An Analysis Of Factors Affecting Outcome. Human Reproduction. 1999; 14: 698–703.

Crawford NM, Steiner AZ. Age-Related Infertility. Obstetrics And Gynecology Clinics Of North America. 2015; 42: 15–25.

Nesbit CB, Blanchette-Porter M, Esfandiari N. Ovulation Induction And Intrauterine Insemination In Women Of Advanced Reproductive Age: A Systematic Review Of The Literature. Journal Of Assisted Reproduction And Genetics. 2022; 39: 1445-1491.

Bellver J, Garrido N, Remohí J, et al. Influence Of Paternal Age On Assisted Reproduction Outcome. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2008; 17: 595–604.

Mathieu C, Ecochard R, Bied V, et al. Cumulative Conception Rate Following Intrauterine Artificial Insemination With Husband’s Spermatozoa: Influence Of Husband’s Age. Human Reproduction. 1995; 10: 1090–1097.

Ombelet W, Dhont N, Thijssen A, et al. Semen Quality And Prediction Of IUI Success In Male Subfertility: A Systematic Review. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2014; 28(3): 300–309.

Deveneau NE, Sinno O, Krause M, Et Al. Impact Of Sperm Morphology On The Likelihood Of Pregnancy After Intrauterine Insemination. Fertility Sterility. 2014; 102: 1584–1590.

Erdem M, Erdem A, Mutlu MF, et al. The Impact Of Sperm Morphology On The Outcome Of Intrauterine Insemination Cycles With Gonadotropins In Unexplained And Male Subfertility. European Journal Of Obstetrics & Gynecology And Reproductive Biology. 2016; 197: 120–124.

Ruiter-Ligeti J, Agbo C, Dahan M. The Impact Of Semen Processing On Sperm Parameters And Pregnancy Rates With Intrauterine Inseminations. Minerva Obstetrics And Gynecology. 2017; 69: 218–224.

Immediata V, Patrizio P, Parisen MR, et al. Twenty-One Year Experience With Intrauterine Inseminations After Controlled Ovarian Stimulation With Gonadotropins: Maternal Age Is The Only Prognostic Factor For Success. Journal Of Assisted Reproduction And Genetics. 2020; 37(5): 1195-1201.

Belloc S, Cohen-Bacrie P, Benkhalifa M, et al. Effect Of Maternal And Paternal Age On Pregnancy And Miscarriage Rates After Intrauterine Insemination. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2008; 17(3): 392-397.

Tatsumi T, Ishida E, Tatsumi K, et al. Advanced Paternal Age Alone Does Not Adversely Affect Pregnancy Or Live-Birth Rates Or Sperm Parameters Following Intrauterine Insemination. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2018; 17(4): 459-465.

Paoli D, Pelloni M, Lenzi A, Lombardo F. Cryopreservation Of Sperm: Effects On Chromatin And Strategies To Prevent Them. In: Baldi, E, Muratori, M. (Eds) Genetic Damage In Human Spermatozoa. Advances In Experimental Medicine And Biology. 2019.

Rozati H, Handley T, Jayasena CN. Process And Pitfalls Of Sperm Cryopreservation. Journal Of Clinical Medicine. 2017; 6(9): 1-13.

Isachenko E, Rahimi G, Sanchez MR, Isachenko V. Novel Approaches To The Cryopreservation Of Human Spermatozoa: History And Development Of The Spermatozoa Vitrification Technology. Journal of Reproductive and Stem Cell Biotechnology. 2011; 2(2): 128-145.

Williams DH. Sperm Banking And The Cancer Patient. Therapeutic Advances In Urology. 2010; 2(1): 19-34.

Ajala T, Rafi J, Larsen-Disney P, Howell R. Fertility Preservation For Cancer Patients: A Review. Obstetrics And Gynecology International. 2010; 2010: 160386. Doi: 10.1155/2010/160386. 2010; 2010: 160386.

Multidisciplinary Working Group Convened By The British Fertility Society. A Strategy For Fertility Services For Survivors Of Childhood Cancer. Human Fertility (Camb). 2003; 6 (2): 1-39.

Di Santo M, Tarozzi N, Nadalini M, Borini A. Human Sperm Cryopreservation: Update On Techniques, Effect On DNA Integrity, And Implications For ART. Advances In Urology. 2012; 2012: 1-12.

Sharma Y, Sharma M. Sperm Cryopreservation: Principles And Biology. Journal Of Infertility And Reproductive Biology. 2020, 8(3): 43-48.

Hossain A, Osuamkpe C, Hossain S, Phelps JY. Spontaneously Developed Tail Swellings (SDTS) Influence The Accuracy Of The Hypo-Osmotic Swelling Test (HOS-Test) In Determining Membrane Integrity And Viability Of Human Spermatozoa. Journal Of Assisted Reproduction And Genetics. 2010; 27(2-3): 83-86.

Shabtaie SA, Gerkowicz SA, Kohn TP, Ramasamy R. Role Of Abnormal Sperm Morphology In Predicting Pregnancy Outcomes. Current Urology Reports. 2016; 17(9): 67.

Hotaling JM, Patel DP, Vendryes C, et al. Predictors Of Sperm Recovery After Cryopreservation In Testicular Cancer. Asian Journal Of Andrology. 2016; 18(1): 35-38.

Ribas-Maynou J, Fernández-Encinas A, García-Peiró A, et al. Human Semen Cryopreservation: A Sperm DNA Fragmentation Study With Alkaline And Neutral Comet Assay. Andrology. 2014; 2(1): 83-87.

Centola GM, Eberly S. Seasonal Variations And Age-Related Changes In Human Sperm Count, Motility, Motion Parameters, Morphology, And White Blood Cell Concentration. Fertility And Sterility. 1999; 72: 803–808.

Kidd SA, Eskenazi B, Wyrobek AJ. Effects Of Male Age On Semen Quality And Fertility: A Review Of The Literature. Fertility And Sterility. 2001; 75: 237-248.

Stone BA, Alex A, Werlin LB, Marrs RP. Age Thresholds For Changes In Semen Parameters In Men. Fertility And Sterility. 2013; 100: 952–958.

Li WN, Jia MM, Peng YQ, et al. Semen Quality Pattern And Age Threshold: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study Of 71,623 Infertile Men In China, Between 2011 And 2017. Reproductive Biology And Endocrinology. 2019. 107(2019): 1-8.

Johnson SL, Dunleavy J, Gemmell NJ, Nakagawa S. Consistent Age-Dependent Declines In Human Semen Quality: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis. Ageing Research Reviews. 2015; 19: 22-33.

Pasqualotto FF, Sobreiro BP, Hallak J, et al. Sperm Concentration And Normal Sperm Morphology Decrease And Follicle Stimulating Hormone Level Increases With Age. BJU International. 2005; 96: 1087–1109.

Pino V, Sanz A, Valdés N, et al. The Effects Of Aging On Semen Parameters And Sperm DNA Fragmentation. JBRA Assisted Reproduction. 2020; 24(1): 82-86.

Nikbakht R, Saharkhiz N. The Influence Of Sperm Morphology, Total Motile Sperm Count Of Semen And The Number Of Motile Sperm Inseminated In Sperm Samples On The Success Of Intrauterine Insemination. International Journal Of Fertility & Sterility. 2011; 5(3): 168-173.

Van Voorhis B. Effect Of The Total Motile Sperm Count On The Efficacy And Cost-Effectiveness Of Intrauterine Insemination And In Vitro Fertilization. Fertility And Sterility. 2001; 75: 661–668.

Ejzenberg D, Gomes TJO, Monteleone PAA, et al. Prognostic Factors For Pregnancy After Intrauterine Insemination. International Journal Of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2019; 147(1): 65-72.

Guan HT, Zheng Y, Wang JJ, et al. Relationship Between Donor Sperm Parameters And Pregnancy Outcome After Intrauterine Insemination: Analysis Of 2821 Cycles In 1355 Couples. Andrologia. 2016; 48(1): 29-36.

Matorras R, Corcóstegui B, Perez C, et al. Sperm Morphology Analysis (Strict Criteria) In Male Infertility Is Not A Prognostic Factor In Intrauterine Insemination With Husband's Sperm. Fertility And Sterility. 1995; 63(3): 608-611.

Lee RK, Hou JW, Ho HY, et al. Sperm Morphology Analysis Using Strict Criteria As A Prognostic Factor In Intrauterine Insemination. International Journal Of Andrology. 2002; 25(5): 277-280.

Tao Y, Sanger E, Saewu A. Human Sperm Vitrification: The State Of The Art. Reproductive Biology And Endocrinology. 2020; 18(17): 1-10.

Ku JY, Park NC, Jeon TG, Park HJ. Semen Analysis In Cancer Patients Referred For Sperm Cryopreservation Before Chemotherapy Over A 15-Year Period In Korea. The World Journal Of Men's Health. 2015, 33(1): 8-13.

Meseguer M, Molina N, García-Velasco JA, et al. Sperm Cryopreservation In Oncological Patients: A 14-Year Follow-Up Study. Fertility And Sterility. 2006; 85(3): 640-645.

Matorras R, Gorostiaga A, Diez J, et al. Intrauterine Insemination With Frozen Sperm Increases Pregnancy Rates In Donor Insemination Cycles Under Gonadotropin Stimulation. Fertility And Sterility. 1996; 65(3): 620-625.

Merviel P, Heraud MH, Grenier N, et al. Predictive Factors For Pregnancy After Intrauterine Insemination (IUI): An Analysis Of 1038 Cycles And A Review Of The Literature. Fertility And Sterility. 2010; 93: 79–88.

Campana A, Sakkas D, Stalberg A, et al. Intrauterine Insemination: Evaluation Of The Results According To The Woman’s Age, Sperm Quality, Total Sperm Count Per Insemination And Life Table Analysis. Human Reproduction. 1996; 11(4): 732-736.

Ombelet W, Vandeput H, Van De Putte G, et al. Intrauterine Insemination After Ovarian Stimulation With Clomiphene Citrate: Predictive Potential Of Inseminating Motile Count And Sperm Morphology. Human Reproduction. 1997; 12: 1458–1463.

Lemmens L, Kos S, Beijer C, et al. Semen Section Of The Dutch Foundation For Quality Assessment In Medical Laboratories. Predictive Value Of Sperm Morphology And Progressively Motile Sperm Count For Pregnancy Outcomes In Intrauterine Insemination. Fertility and Sterility. 2016; 105(6):1462-1468.

How to Cite
Lionel Wildy, M. (2023). The Effect of Age, Sperm Freezing, and Washing on Intrauterine Insemination Outcome: a Retrospective Analysis. Journal of Infertility and Reproductive Biology, 11(1), 4-10.
Regular publication process (free of charge)