title: The relationship between anogenital distance, fatherhood, and fertility in adult men.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Anogenital distance (AGD), a sexually dimorphic measure of genital development, is a marker for endocrine disruption in animal studies and may be shorter in infant males with genital anomalies. Given the correlation between anogenital distance and genital development, we sought to determine if anogenital distance varied in fertile compared to infertile adult men.
  
  
  METHODS
  A cross sectional study of consecutive men being evaluated for infertility and men with proven fertility was recruited from an andrology clinic. Anogenital distance (the distance from the posterior aspect of the scrotum to the anal verge) and penile length (PL) were measured using digital calipers. ANOVA and linear regression were used to determine correlations between AGD, fatherhood status, and semen analysis parameters (sperm density, motility, and total motile sperm count).
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 117 infertile men (mean age: 35.3±17.4) and 56 fertile men (mean age: 44.8±9.7) were recruited. The infertile men possessed significantly shorter mean AGD and PL compared to the fertile controls (AGD: 31.8 vs 44.6 mm, PL: 107.1 vs 119.5 mm, p<0.01). The difference in AGD persisted even after accounting for ethnic and anthropomorphic differences. In addition to fatherhood, on both unadjusted and adjusted linear regression, AGD was significantly correlated with sperm density and total motile sperm count. After adjusting for demographic and reproductive variables, for each 1 cm increase in a man's AGD, the sperm density increases by 4.3 million sperm per mL (95% CI 0.53, 8.09, p = 0.03) and the total motile sperm count increases by 6.0 million sperm (95% CI 1.34, 10.58, p = 0.01). On adjusted analyses, no correlation was seen between penile length and semen parameters.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  A longer anogenital distance is associated with fatherhood and may predict normal male reproductive potential. Thus, AGD may provide a novel metric to assess reproductive potential in men.
authors: Division of Male Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Scott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America. eisenberg@stanford.edu
authors: Michael L
authors: ML
authors: Eisenberg
authors: Michael H
authors: MH
authors: Hsieh
authors: Rustin Chanc
authors: RC
authors: Walters
authors: Ross
authors: R
authors: Krasnow
authors: Larry I
authors: LI
authors: Lipshultz
references: Int J Androl. 2008 Apr;31(2):241-8
references: 18315719
references: Environ Health Perspect. 2009 Nov;117(11):1786-90
references: 20049133
references: Hum Reprod. 2010 Jun;25(6):1348-53
references: 20395222
references: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008 Oct;1140:155-62
references: 18991914
references: Biol Med (Paris). 1968 Jan-Feb;57(1):44-90
references: 4244438
references: Endocrinology. 2008 Oct;149(10):5280-7
references: 18566125
references: Curr Urol Rep. 2008 Mar;9(2):137-42
references: 18419998
references: J Pediatr. 1987 Aug;111(2):240-3
references: 3612396
references: Hum Reprod Update. 2001 May-Jun;7(3):231-5
references: 11392369
references: Environ Health. 2004 Sep 13;3(1):8
references: 15363098
references: JAMA. 1998 Apr 1;279(13):1018-23
references: 9533502
references: Int J Androl. 2007 Aug;30(4):198-204; discussion 204-5
references: 17705804
references: Int J Androl. 2010 Apr;33(2):317-23
references: 20132349
references: Endocrinology. 2007 May;148(5):2027-36
references: 17289843
references: Int J Androl. 2010 Feb;33(1):e144-52
references: 19656234
references: Lab Anim. 1977 Jul;11(3):181-4
references: 886831
references: Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Aug;113(8):1056-61
references: 16079079
references: BMJ. 1992 Sep 12;305(6854):609-13
references: 1393072
references: Int J Androl. 2010 Apr;33(2):279-87
references: 20002220