Journals / Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology / 2008 / Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 2

Etiology of a bening proteinuri: presence of semen in the urine

Selim bir proteinüri nedeni: idrarda semen varlığı

Pages
221–223
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)

Conclusion: The results of the present study support the fact that presence of semen in the urine may be a factor leading to a positive dipstick tests in men.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: Urinalysis is one of the most important and fundamental diagnostic tests, especially in urological disorders.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: We collected urinary samples from a healthy volunteer and divided the sample into 20 different containers that contained 10 cc of urine in each.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: The results of the present study support the fact that presence of semen in the urine may be a factor leading to a positive dipstick tests in men.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Semen · Proteinüri · İdrar tahlili

Abstract

Introduction: Urinalysis is one of the most important and fundamental diagnostic tests, especially in urological disorders. There are various factors that affect parameters such as the pH, glucose and protein measurements. This study uses an experimental model to analyze the effects of semen on the levels of protein in the urine, which can be present in the urine following sexual intercourse, and whether it causes a proteinuria. Materials and Methods: We collected urinary samples from a healthy volunteer and divided the sample into 20 different containers that contained 10 cc of urine in each. We randomly divided the 20 containers into four groups, containing 5 containers in each group, and added 0.25, 0.5, 1 and 2 ml of semen collected from healthy individuals to each group of containers. Results: The mean protein concentrations in the containers after addition of 0.25, 0.5, 1 and 2 ml of semen were 12, 33, 71 and 110 mg/dl, respectively. On the other hand, the results of dipstick analysis were negative for the samples in the container including 0.25 ml semen and positive for other groups. Conclusion: The results of the present study support the fact that presence of semen in the urine may be a factor leading to a positive dipstick tests in men.

Özet

İdrar analizi, özellikle ürolojik hastalıklarda, tanıya yönelik tetkiklerin başında gelen önemli bir testtir. Tam bir idrar tetkiki fiziksel, kimyasal ve mikroskobik analizleri içermelidir. Fiziksel analiz; renk, bulanıklık, özgül ağırlık- osmolalite ve pH ölçümünü içerir. Bu çalışmada cinsel ilişki sonrası idrarda bulunabilen semenin proteinüriye neden olup olmadığını deneysel bir modelde araştırdık. Mikroskobik, biyokimyasal ve kültür analizleri normal olan sağlıklı bir gönüllüye ait idrardan 20 adet tüpe 10’ar cc idrar alındı. 20 tüp beşerli dört gruba ayrılarak her bir grup tüpe sırasıyla 0.25, 0.5, 1 ve 2’şer ml mikroskobik, biyokimyasal ve kültür analizleri normal, sağlıklı gönüllülerden alınmış likefiye semen eklendi. Ardından, semen eklenmiş idrar örneklerinde biyokimyasal yöntemler ve dipstik kullanımı ile protein varlığı araştırıldı. 0.25, 0.5, 1 ve 2’şer ml semen ilave edilen tüplerdeki protein konsantrasyon ortalamaları sırasıyla 12, 33, 71, 110 mg/dl idi. Kantitatif protein analiz sonuçlarına paralel olarak dipstikle protein varlığı 0.25 ml semen ilave edilen tüplerde negatif iken, 0.5, 1 ve 2’şer ml semen ilave edilen tüplerde pozitif bulundu. İdrarda semen miktarının artmasıyla yükselen protein konsantrasyonu idrarda semen varlığının erkekte proteinüriye neden olan bir etken olabileceğini düşündürmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜLÜM, M., ÇİFTÇİ, H., BAKAN, İ. (2008). Etiology of a bening proteinuri: presence of semen in the urine. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 2, 221–223. https://ajindex.com/articles/328227

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Gerber GS, Brendler CB: Evaluation of the urologic patient: History, physical examination, and urinalysis. In Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED, Wein AJ eds, Camp- bell’s Urology, 9th edn. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 100- 3, 2007
  2. Csako G: False positive results for ketone with the drug MESNA and other free-sulfhydryl compounds. Clin Chem; 33: 289, 1987
  3. Cushner HM, Copley JB: Back to basics: The urinaly- sis: A selected national survey and review. Am J Med Sci; 297: 193, 1989
  4. Woolhandler S, Pels RJ, Bor DH, Himmelstein DU, Lawrence RS: Dipstick urinalysis screening of asympto- matic adults for urinary tract disorders. Hematuria and proteinuria. JAMA; 262: 1214-9, 1989
  5. Carroll MF, Temte JL: Proteinuria in adults: A diag- nostic approach. Am Fam Physician; 62: 1333-40, 2000
  6. Harris NM, Yardley I, Basketter V, Holmes SA: Is se- xual intercourse a significant cause of haematuria? BJU Int; 89: 344-6, 2002
  7. Mazouz B, Almagor M: False-positive microhematuria in dipsticks urinalysis caused by the presence of semen in urine. Clin Biochem; 36: 229-31, 2003
  8. Domachevsky L, Grupper M, Shochat T, Adir Y: Pro- teinuria on dipstick urine analysis after sexual intercour- se. BJU Int; 97: 146-8, 2006
  9. Lentner C: Sperm. In Lentner C. Geigy Scientific Tab- les, 8th edn. Units of Measurement, Body Fluids, Com- position of the Body, Nutrition, Vol. 1, West Caldwell, NY: Ciba-Geigy Corporation, Medical Education Divisi- on, 185-93, 1981.