Literature DB >> 12137592

Assessment of human sperm morphology by strict criteria: comparison of wet preparation versus stained with the modified Diff-Quik method.

E Oral1, O Yetis, F Elibol, H Senol, T Irez, F M Aksu.   

Abstract

Routine semen examination remains an important tool for the diagnosis and treatment in human subfertility. Of all semen parameters, sperm morphology seems to be one of the most powerful indicators of a man's fertilizing potential in vitro and in vivo. Lack of standardization of sperm morphology assessments remains the main reason for the usefulness of this parameter. The aim of this study was to analyze the agreement between the wet-stained preparations versus those stained with modified Diff-Quik for sperm morphology. A total of 100 unselected semen samples from infertile couples were analyzed. Sperm morphology was evaluated with unstained specimens and following modified Diff-Quik staining according to the strict (Kruger classification) criteria by two different examiners (intralaboratory blind assessment). Mean percentages of morphologically normal spermatozoa were identical on wet and stained preparation slides (4.79 vs. 4.61, p >.05). Wide divergence of results was found with respect to the percentage of sperm with head and midpiece defects with the two different preparations (p >.001). The percentage of sperm tail defects was similar in both methods (p >.05). Simple linear regression analysis between the two methods revealed very good correlation for the morphologically normal spermatozoa (r =.83), but poor correlation for the sperm head, midpiece, and tail defects (r =.25,.25, and.28, respectively). Wet preparation is suitable only for the morphologically normal spermatozoa, but to determine the percentage of the defective spermatozoa, staining the smear is recommended.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12137592     DOI: 10.1080/01485010290031628

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Androl        ISSN: 0148-5016


  5 in total

1.  Semen analysis standardization: is there any problem in Polish laboratories?

Authors:  Renata Walczak-Jedrzejowska; Katarzyna Marchlewska; Elzbieta Oszukowska; Eliza Filipiak; Leszek Bergier; Jolanta Slowikowska-Hilczer
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2013-07-01       Impact factor: 3.285

2.  Are unstained smears, effective tools in the evaluation of the cytological sample adequacy?

Authors:  Hemalatha A L; Umarani M K; Asha U; Gayathri M N
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2012-11-19

3.  The effect of the staining technique on morphological and morphometric parameters of boar sperm.

Authors:  Magdalena Czubaszek; Katarzyna Andraszek; Dorota Banaszewska; Renata Walczak-Jędrzejowska
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Effect of vitamin D on apoptotic marker, reactive oxygen species and human sperm parameters during the process of cryopreservation.

Authors:  Mahin Taheri Moghadam; Yousef Asadi Fard; Ghasem Saki; Roshan Nikbakht
Journal:  Iran J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 2.699

Review 5.  Sperm Morphology Assessment in the Era of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection: Reliable Results Require Focus on Standardization, Quality Control, and Training.

Authors:  Ashok Agarwal; Rakesh Sharma; Sajal Gupta; Renata Finelli; Neel Parekh; Manesh Kumar Panner Selvam; Ralf Henkel; Damayanthi Durairajanayagam; Camila Pompeu; Sarah Madani; Andrea Belo; Neha Singh; Simryn Covarrubias; Sara Darbandi; Raha Sadeghi; Mahsa Darbandi; Paraskevi Vogiatzi; Florence Boitrelle; Mara Simopoulou; Ramadan Saleh; Mohamed Arafa; Ahmad Majzoub; Hussein Kandil; Armand Zini; Edmund Ko; Juan G Alvarez; Marlon Martinez; Jonathan Ramsay; Sunil Jindal; Gian Maria Busetto; Hassan Sallam; Israel Maldonado; Christina Anagnostopoulou; Marco G Alves; Pallav Sengupta; Kambiz Gilany; Donald P Evenson; Sheena E M Lewis; Jaime Gosalvez; Rafael F Ambar; Rupin Shah
Journal:  World J Mens Health       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 6.494

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.