Advertisement

In vivo survival of spermatozoa in cervical mucus

      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.

      Abstract

      • 1. Valuable information concerning timing and character of ovulation can be obtained by correlating alterations of cervical mucus with changes in the basal body temperature during the menstrual cycle.
      • 2. Examination of phase lines formed at the interphase between cervical mucus and seminal fluid in vitro gives some indication of the in vivo behavior of these fluids.
      • 3. The consistent absence of spermatozoa from the cervical mucus one day after intercourse or insemination should arouse suspicion about the mucus-semen incompatibility.
      • 4. The presence of many nonmotile and abnormal spermatozoa in cervical mucus 24 hours or longer after intercourse or insemination, in some patients, suggests the possibility that cervical mucus acts as a filter, which prevents ascent of abnormal spermatozoa up the genital tract.
      • 5. Frequently, in vivo spermatozoa survive in cervical mucus for as long as 5 days after insemination or intercourse, and occasionally up to 7 days. Theoretical implications regarding the effectiveness of the “rhythm system” for contraceptive purposes in some women are left to the reader.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Perloff W.H.
        • Steinberger E.
        Fertil. & Steril. 1963; 14: 231
        • Miller Jr., E.G.
        • Kurzrok R.
        Am. J. Obst. & Gynec. 1932; 24: 19