I just got off the phone with a well meaning women at my doc office, but she did not know enough about SA to give me anything but numbers. She said DH had all good marks, except his morphology. He was at 61% amorphous. Is this something that we should be worrying about/seeking treatment for or is it ok?
The doc is supposed to call us tomorrow morning (lets see if that happens, I am not holding my breath).
Any thoughts? TIA.
Re: Please help me interpret DH SA!
DH - Low Testosterone (but normal SA)
December 2008 - Pregnancy Loss @ 17 1/2 weeks (Trisomy 18)
September 2009 - HSG all clear!
April & May 2010 - 2 Failed IUI's
August 2010 - Laparosocopy - all endo adhesions removed!
1st IVF cycle - January 2011 - BFN
FET#1 - April 2011 - BFN
FET#2 - June 2011 - BFN
Morphology is such a controversial subject, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
My lab considers anything over 4% normal. Each lab has different standards but I really wouldn't read too much into it...
Complete surprise!
DD born 09/17/2012
TTC since November 2008
3 rounds of Clomid = Fail
1 round of injectables + IUI converted to IVF = cancelled
1 year break to ease my mind and body = KU!
<a href="http://www.thebump.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Ovulation Calculator"><img src="http://global.thebump.com/tickers/tt1da5e5" alt=" Pregnancy Ticker" border="0" /></a>
This. If she was saying that 61% are not normal shaped, then it stands to reason that 39% are good, which puts you in more than great shape. I'd just wait on your doctor tomorrow...this lady could be confusing something.
What she said really makes no sense to me... if they were going on the Kruger scale, then anything above 4% is OK by most docs based on the new standards. Based on the old standards, they'll say anything above 14% is OK. Based on the WAYYYYYYY old standards and non Kruger/non strict morphology, they'll say anything above 30% is OK.
If you are at 39% morphology, I really can't imagine that being a problem .
This exactly. That sounds like it was probably not the Kruger (strict) scale just because it's practically unheard of for a guy to have over 15-20% on Kruger. So if it was Kruger, there is no way she would have said it might be a problem. Unless she really just has no clue.