I had a sperm count done after 29 days of abstenance that showed low morphology of 1%. The count was done by an outside lab that has no connection to our fertility doctor. Our doctor considers 5% to 13% to be low-normal or something, which means their 1% isn't even on his graph.
Anyway he is pushing IVF ICII, which I agree is the best course of action in our situation, IF I really have 1% morphology. However I'm scared that morphology has something to do with the abstenance or some lab varience or other non-permanent factor. Nutrition is supposed to (depending on who you listen to) make a difference, but is there really going to be a difference from 1%? One percent to me is "barely not zero", doubled is still barely not zero.
He is very reluctant to repeat the sperm count as during preparation for ICII the sperm will be analysed again. The thing is I don't want my wife going through 8 weeks of pre-IVF, not to mention the financial costs, only to have them come out and say, "Well your sperm turned out to be 8% morphology, we really could have tried IUI first."
Does that make sense? I can't seem to find any information on the cause of low morphology. Does long abstenance have any effect? Is 1% hopeless (or at the bottom of hopeless right next to zero)? Is there really no point in getting retested?