الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 169 |  |  |
| | | from | 169 | | |
Abstract
Ideally the infertile couple should be diagnosed and treated as a unit. It has been timated that male infertility represents approximately 40~50% of the cases presenting to rtility clinics (Class, 1991; lrianni and Coddington, 1992). Evaluation of the male infertility ,i currently limited to assessment of a few aspects of sperm function and largely depends on escriptive criteria as the classical parameters of semen analysis: sperm concentration, motility, d morphology (Aitken, 1990; Tesarik and Testart, 1989). However, inter-laboratory, inter-hnician, inter-patient and intra-patient variabilities have questioned the usefulness of this ’.agnostic screen (Kruger et al., 1988; Freund, 1966; Fredricsson, 1979; Overstreet, 1984; ’orking, 1988). Investigators have also attempted to measure movement characteristics via mputerized system for sperm track reconstruction (Aitken, 1990) and to apply hyperactivated rm motility as an end-point of capacitation correlated with fertilizing capacity in animal odel (Yanagimachi, 1994) as an additional correlate. Unfortunately, <24% of all human rmatozoa incubated 3 to 24 h conform to this model (Robertson et al., 1988).Simple and rapid assessment of male fertility is an objective which has eluded ;vestigators since male infertility was first recognized. In truth, there may never be a single