Sperm parameters in Israeli transgender women before and after cryopreservation.
Andrology 2023;
11:1050-1056. [PMID:
36542410 DOI:
10.1111/andr.13369]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2022] [Revised: 11/28/2022] [Accepted: 12/13/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The application of fertility preservation, initially intended for oncological patients prior to gonadotoxic treatment, has extended in recent years to transgender and gender-non-conforming individuals undergoing therapy for gender compatibility.
OBJECTIVES
To examine semen quality and survival in transgender women pursuing semen cryopreservation in the presence or absence of gender-affirming hormonal medication.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed data of 74 consecutive transgender women presenting for semen cryopreservation at a single center between 2000 and 2019. Semen parameters before and after cryopreservation were compared to a control group composed of 100 consecutive sperm bank donor candidates. A subgroup analysis of subjects who had used gender-affirming hormonal treatment was also performed.
RESULTS
Compared to the control group, transgender women had lower total sperm count (144.0 vs. 54.5 million, respectively, p < 0.001), lower sperm motility percentage (65.0% vs. 51.0%, respectively, p < 0.001), and lower total motile sperm count (94.0 vs. 27.0 million, respectively, p < 0.001). Values were further decreased in transgender women who had received hormonal treatment before sperm cryopreservation. Post-thawing motility rate remained lower in the transgender group compared to the control group (20.0% vs. 45.0%, respectively, p < 0.001), and the total motile count remained lower as well (2.7 vs. 9.0 million, respectively, p < 0.001). Following sperm cryopreservation, the post-thaw decreases in total motile sperm count were higher in the transgender group compared with the control group (91.5% vs. 90.0%). Further subdivision in the transgender group showed that the decrease in total motile sperm count was lower for transgender women who did not use gender-affirming hormonal treatment compared to those who did (-89.7% vs. -92.6%, respectively, p < 0.01).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Sperm parameters in transgender women are poor compared to candidates for sperm donation representing the general population. Specimens collected after discontinuation of gender-affirming hormone treatments were further impaired. Moreover, post-thawing sperm total motile count, motility, and overall sperm survival were reduced in transgender women.
Collapse