Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar
AI InsightBULGULAR: NLR, normozoospermik grupta 1,80±0,65, anormal semen analiz grubunda 1,82±0,66; PLR normozoospermik grupta 104,28±30,55, anormal semen analiz grubunda 106,73±35,01; MER, normozoospermik erkeklerde 2,99±1,74, anormal semen analiz grubunda 7,24±16,57 olarak hesaplanmıştır.
📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale
Özet
AMAÇ: Çeşitli hematolojik parametreler konak ile ilişkili sistemik inflamatuvar yanıtı temel alan yararlı prognostik belirteçler olarak araştırılmaktadır. Bu parametreler, çeşitli kanser tipleri ve inflamatuvar hastalıklar dahil olmak üzere birçok durumda hastaların prognozunu tahmin etmek için kullanılsa da, erkek infertilitesindeki prognostik etkinlikleri hakkında çok az şey bilinmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, normozoospermik ve anormal sperm parametrelerine sahip infertil erkeklerde inflamatuvar belirteçler olan nötrofil-lenfosit oranı (NLR), trombosit-lenfosit oranı (PLR) ve monosit-eosinofil (MER) oranı ile semen parametreleri arasındaki ilişkinin değerlendirilmesidir. Ayrıca, D vitamini düzeyleri ile seminal parametreler arasındaki korelasyon da araştırılmıştır. GEREÇ ve YÖNTEM: Bu kesitsel çalışmaya, androloji polikliniğine infertilite ile başvuran ve anormal sperm analizi olan 126 hasta ile normozoospermik 79 erkek dahil edildi. Tam kan sayımı yapılarak sonuçlar kaydedildi ve NLR, PLR ve MER hematolojik parametrelerden hesaplandı. Katılımcıların D vitamini seviyeleri de not edildi. BULGULAR: NLR, normozoospermik grupta 1,80±0,65, anormal semen analiz grubunda 1,82±0,66; PLR normozoospermik grupta 104,28±30,55, anormal semen analiz grubunda 106,73±35,01; MER, normozoospermik erkeklerde 2,99±1,74, anormal semen analiz grubunda 7,24±16,57 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Normozoospermik ve anormal semen analiz grubu arasında NLR (p=0,911), PLR (p=0,746) veya MER (0,166) arasında anlamlı fark bulunmadı. iki grup arasında D vitamini seviyeleri açısından anlamlı farklılık saptanmadı (37,62±1,91’e karşı 38,43±2,51, p: 0,103). Ayrıca NLR, PLR veya MER ile seminal parametreler arasında korelasyon bulunmadı (p>0,05). SONUÇ: Bizim sonuçlarımıza göre, anormal sperm parametrelerini veya erkek infertilitesini taramak için NLR, PLR veya MER’yi belirteç olarak kullanmanın önerilmesi mümkün gözükmemektedir.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Several hematological parameters are being investigated as useful prognostic markers based on host-related systemic inflammatory response. Although they are used to predict prognosis of patients in many conditions including various cancer types and inflammatory diseases, little is known about their prognostic efficacy in male infertility. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship of seminal parameters with the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and monocyte-to-eosinophil (MER) ratio, which are inflammatory markers, in men with an abnormal semen analysis, and men with normozoospermia. We also investigated the correlation between vitamin D levels and seminal parameters. MATERIAL and METHODS: One hundred and twenty-six men with abnormal semen analyses and 79 men with normozoospermia were included in this cross-sectional studOBJECTIVES: Several hematological parameters are being investigated as useful prognostic markers based on host-related systemic inflammatory response. Although they are used to predict prognosis of patients in many conditions including various cancer types and inflammatory diseases, little is known about their prognostic efficacy in male infertility. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship of seminal parameters with the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and monocyte-to-eosinophil (MER) ratio, which are inflammatory markers, in men with an abnormal semen analysis, and men with normozoospermia. We also investigated the correlation between vitamin D levels and seminal parameters. MATERIAL and METHODS: One hundred and twenty-six men with abnormal semen analyses and 79 men with normozoospermia were included in this cross-sectional study. A complete blood count was recorded, and the NLR, PLR and MER were calculated from the hematologic parameters. Vitamin D levels were also noted for participants. RESULTS: The NLR was 1.80±0.65 in the normozoospermic group and 1.82±0.66 in the abnormal semen analysis group. The PLR was 104.28±30.55 in the normozoospermic group and 106.73±35.01 in the abnormal semen analysis group. MER was 2.99±1.74 in normozoospermic men and 7.24±16.57 in abnormal semen analysis group. No significant differences were found between the normozoospermic and the abnormal semen analysis group in the NLR (p=0.911), the PLR (p=0.746) or MER (0.166). Vitamin D levels were also nonsignificant between two groups (37.62±1.91 vs. 38.43±2.51, p=0.103). In addition, no seminal parameters were correlated with the NOBJECTIVES: Several hematological parameters are being investigated as useful prognostic markers based on host-related systemic inflammatory response. Although they are used to predict prognosis of patients in many conditions including various cancer types and inflammatory diseases, little is known about their prognostic efficacy in male infertility. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship of seminal parameters with the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and monocyte-to-eosinophil (MER) ratio, which are inflammatory markers, in men with an abnormal semen analysis, and men with normozoospermia. We also investigated the correlation between vitamin D levels and seminal parameters. MATERIAL and METHODS: One hundred and twenty-six men with abnormal semen analyses and 79 men with normozoospermia were included in this cross-sectional study. A complete blood count was recorded, and the NLR, PLR and MER were calculated from the hematologic parameters. Vitamin D levels were also noted for participants. RESULTS: The NLR was 1.80±0.65 in the normozoospermic group and 1.82±0.66 in the abnormal semen analysis group. The PLR was 104.28±30.55 in the normozoospermic group and 106.73±35.01 in the abnormal semen analysis group. MER was 2.99±1.74 in normozoospermic men and 7.24±16.57 in abnormal semen analysis group. No significant differences were found between the normozoospermic and the abnormal semen analysis group in the NLR (p=0.911), the PLR (p=0.746) or MER (0.166). Vitamin D levels were also nonsignificant between two groups (37.62±1.91 vs. 38.43±2.51, p=0.103). In addition, no seminal parameters were correlated with the NLR, PLR or MER (p>0.05).OBJECTIVES: Several hematological parameters are being investigated as useful prognostic markers based on host-related systemic inflammatory response. Although they are used to predict prognosis of patients in many conditions including various cancer types and inflammatory diseases, little is known about their prognostic efficacy in male infertility. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship of seminal parameters with the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and monocyte-to-eosinophil (MER) ratio, which are inflammatory markers, in men with an abnormal semen analysis, and men with normozoospermia. We also investigated the correlation between vitamin D levels and seminal parameters. MATERIAL and METHODS: One hundred and twenty-six men with abnormal semen analyses and 79 men with normozoospermia were included in this cross-sectional study. A complete blood count was recorded, and the NLR, PLR and MER were calculated from the hematologic parameters. Vitamin D levels were also noted for participants. RESULTS: The NLR was 1.80±0.65 in the normozoospermic group and 1.82±0.66 in the abnormal semen analysis group. The PLR was 104.28±30.55 in the normozoospermic group and 106.73±35.01 in the abnormal semen analysis group. MER was 2.99±1.74 in normozoospermic men and 7.24±16.57 in abnormal semen analysis group. No significant differences were found between the normozoospermic and the abnormal semen analysis group in the NLR (p=0.911), the PLR (p=0.746) or MER (0.166). Vitamin D levels were also nonsignificant between two groups (37.62±1.91 vs. 38.43±2.51, p=0.103). In ad