Journals / Gülhane Tıp Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 1

Comparasion of spermac and diff-quik staining methods in the assessment of sperm morphology in asthenozoopermia cases

Asthenozoospermia olgularında sperm morfolojisi değerlendirmede spermac ve diff-quik boya yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması

Pages
23–26
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Test results showed consistency with both staining methods on 55 semen samples examined.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Comparison of Spermac and Diff-quik staining methods in the assessment of sperm morphology in asthenozoopermia cases Sperm motility problems (Asthenozoopermia) is one of the major causes of male infertility.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In cases with asthenozoop- ermia infertility increases to a greater extent when sperm morphology disorders are added to coexisting motility disor- ders.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Test results showed consistency with both staining methods on 55 semen samples examined.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2004 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Karşılaştırmalı çalışma · Astenozospermi · Sperm

Abstract

Comparison of Spermac and Diff-quik staining methods in the assessment of sperm morphology in asthenozoopermia cases Sperm motility problems (Asthenozoopermia) is one of the major causes of male infertility. In cases with asthenozoop- ermia infertility increases to a greater extent when sperm morphology disorders are added to coexisting motility disor- ders. A total of 65 males (21 males with sperm motility dis- order and 44 males without this disorder) who referred to the in vitro fertilization unit of Dokuz Eylul University Medical School between November 15, 2004 and April 5, 2005 were included in the present study. Spermac and Diff-quik staining methods were used in the assessment of sperm morphology in all semen samples. Test results showed consistency with both staining methods on 55 semen samples examined. Sperm mor- phology was normal in 32 semen samples with consistent test results by both methods, while the percentage of morpho- logy was low in 23 cases. In 7 of remaining 10 cases, the sperm morphology was in the normal range with Diff-quik staining method while an abnormal percentage was detected with Spermac method. In 3 cases the sperm morphology was within normal limits with Spermac staining method while Diff-quik staining method demonstrated abnormal sperm morphology. Statistical analysis with Mc Nemar test demon- strated that both staining methods were reliable. Since nei- ther of the two methods used in the evaluation of sperm mor- phology has proven superiority to the other, a cost reduction may be provided by choosing the economical one.

Özet

Tavşanlarda deneysel model çalışılarak akut apandisitin evreleri değerlendirilmiştir. Yeni Zelanda ırkından, ağırlıkları yaklaşık 3000 gr olan yirmi bir adet erkek tavşan (oryctogalus cuniculus) çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hayvanlar üç gruba ayrıldı. Deneysel modelde apandiks yaklaşık 7-8 cm distalinden 0 numara ipekle ligate edildi. Grup I'dekilere ligasyondan 12 saat, Grup II'dekilere 24 saat, Grup III'dekilere 36 saat sonra apandektomi yapıldı. Bütün apandektomi materyalleri makroskopik ve mikroskopik olarak değerlendirildi. Olguların hepsinde apandiksin deneysel obstrüksiyonu histopatolojik olarak insanlardakine benzer şekilde apandiks duvarında inflamatuvar değişiklikler ile sonuçlandı. Apandiks obstrüksiyonundan sonra geçen zaman ile histopatolojik bulgular arasında yakın bir ilişki vardı. Deneysel çalışmamızın verileri ışığında apandiks ligasyonu akut apandisit modeli oluşturmada başarılı bir yöntem olarak bulunmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

OK, E., ÖZYURT, D., GÜLEKLİ, B. (2008). Comparasion of spermac and diff-quik staining methods in the assessment of sperm morphology in asthenozoopermia cases. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 1, 23–26. https://ajindex.com/articles/225496

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Brugh VM 3rd, Matschke HM, Lipshultz LI. Male factor infer- tility. Evaluation and management. Endocrinol Med Clin North Am 2004; 88: 367-385
  2. Curi SM, Ariagno JI, Chenlo PH, et al. Asthenozoopermia: analysis of a large population. Arch Androl 2003; 49: 343-349
  3. Enginsu ME, Dumuolin JCM, Pieters MHEC, et al. Evaluation of human sperm morphology using strict criteria after Diff- Quik® staining: correlation of morphology with fertilization in vitro. Hum Reprod 1991; 6: 854-858
  4. Vazquez-Levin MH, Goldberg SI, Friedmann P, et al. Papanicolau and Kruger assessment of sperm morphology: threshold and agreement. Int J Androl 1998; 21: 327-331
  5. Eggert-Kruse W, Schwarz H, Rohr G, et al. Sperm morphology assessment using strict criteria and male fertility under in-vivo conditions of conception. Hum Reprod 1996; 11: 139-146
  6. World Health Organization. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination on Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999; 76: 4-33. 7. http://www.aksuvar.com/frameset.htm (son eriþim tarihi: 20 Mart 2008)
  7. Conover WJ. Practical nonparametric statistics, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1980
  8. Aydos K, Ünlü C, Demirel C. Relation of the morphological alterations of spermatozoa with motility. J Turkish German Gynecol Assoc 2000; 1: 5-8
  9. Barroso G, Mercan R, Ozgur K, et al. Intra- and inter-laborato- ry variability in the assessment of sperm morphology by strict criteria: impact of semen preparation, staining techniques and manual versus computerized analysis. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 2036-2040
  10. Kruger TF, Ackerman SB, Simmons KF. A quick, reliable stain- ing technique for human sperm morphology. Arch Androl 1987; 18: 275-277
  11. Menkveld R., Lacquet FA, Kruger TF, et al. Effects of different staining and washing procedures on the results of human sperm morphology evaluation by manual and computerised methods. Andrologia 1997; 29: 1-7
  12. Graves JE, Higdon HL 3rd, Boone WR, et al. Developing tech- niques for determining sperm morphology in today's andrology laboratory. J Assist Reprod Genet 2005; 22: 219-225
  13. Auger J, Eustache F, Ducot B, et al. Intra- and inter-individual variability in human sperm concentration, motility and vitality assessment during a workshop involving ten laboratories. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 2360-2368
  14. Mundy AJ, Ryder TA, Edmonds DK. Asthenozoopermia and the human sperm mid-piece. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 116-119
  15. Courtade M, Lagorce C, Bujan L, et