Electroejaculation does not impair sperm motility in the beagle dog: a comparative study of electroejaculation and...

Sperm samples obtained by electroejaculation (EEJ) in men with anejaculatory infertility have a markedly lower quality than those obtained by normal ejaculation. An electrical effect of the EEJ procedure has been implicated by some investigators as a direct cause of low sperm quality. To determine whether the EEJ procedure causes direct sperm damage, we compared ejaculates obtained from dogs by EEJ and by artificial vagina (AV). In seven adult beagle dogs, semen was collected weekly, alternating between the two procedures. The average (antegrade) sample from AV had a volume of 2.6 ml., sperm concentration of 150.1 x 10(6) per ml., total sperm count of 381.7 x 10(6) and motility of of 26.3%. The average antegrade sample from EEJ had a volume of 1.8 ml., a concentration of 129.6 x 10(6) per ml., a total sperm count of 166.8 x 10(6) and a motility of 30.1%. Of these differences only the total sperm counts and the total motile sperm counts were statistically significant (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the antegrade motilities, total sperm counts (antegrade plus retrograde-381.7 versus 243.4 x 10(6), for AV and EEJ, respectively) or the total motile sperm counts from the two procedures (103.9 versus 78.0 x 10(6)). There were no differences in the average curvilinear velocity (VCL) measured by computer-assisted sperm motion analysis (56.9 mu. per second for AV, 47.4 mu. per second for antegrade EEJ specimens and 41.7 mu. per second for retrograde EEJ specimens). Since routine semen parameters between artificial vagina and electroejaculation did not differ in dogs, we conclude that the electroejaculation procedure is not responsible for the gross semen abnormalities reported in electroejaculation of anejaculatory men.