Comparison of sperm concentration in fresh and postal post-vasectomy semen samples: a prospective agreement study.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES
Melanie Atkinson, Louise Massey, Gareth James, Rosie Sullivan, Happy Tahirih Kampire, Michel Labrecque
{"title":"Comparison of sperm concentration in fresh and postal post-vasectomy semen samples: a prospective agreement study.","authors":"Melanie Atkinson, Louise Massey, Gareth James, Rosie Sullivan, Happy Tahirih Kampire, Michel Labrecque","doi":"10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most guidelines recommend post-vasectomy semen analysis (PVSA) on fresh samples to confirm success. Postal submission increases compliance although reliability remains controversial. We assessed agreement between first PVSA sperm concentrations on the same sample, freshly and following postage, and determined if any sperm concentration levels other than 'no sperm seen' on a postal sample could be used to advise cessation of other contraceptive methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>12 weeks after vasectomy, men submitted fresh semen samples to laboratory A. Samples were analysed within 2 hours. The remainder of each sample was posted to laboratory B for analysis 72 hours later. Both laboratories examined one aliquot of 25 µL using 100 µm CellVision counting chambers. Sperm counts for the entire slide were reported. No exact count was performed at concentrations estimated >100 000/mL.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analysed the results of 197 paired PVSA. The Bland-Altman plot showed high agreement between fresh and postal sperm concentrations, with only seven samples outlying 95% CIs. Fresh PVSA sperm concentrations were classified higher than postal in 47 (22.1%) pairs and lower in 42 (19.8%). Most discrepancies were observed at sperm concentrations <1000 sperm/mL. 'No sperm seen' was reported in 86 (43.7%) pairs with false negatives encountered in both laboratories (McNemar's test p=0.045). Negative predictive values of postal compared with fresh results were >99% at all cut-off values from 1000 to 100 000 sperm/mL CONCLUSION: Our study showed high agreement in sperm concentrations of first PVSA performed on the same samples submitted fresh or by postal submission. The current postal testing strategy could be modified to encompass clearance on postal PVSA showing very low sperm concentrations.</p>","PeriodicalId":9219,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2025-202768","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Most guidelines recommend post-vasectomy semen analysis (PVSA) on fresh samples to confirm success. Postal submission increases compliance although reliability remains controversial. We assessed agreement between first PVSA sperm concentrations on the same sample, freshly and following postage, and determined if any sperm concentration levels other than 'no sperm seen' on a postal sample could be used to advise cessation of other contraceptive methods.

Methods: 12 weeks after vasectomy, men submitted fresh semen samples to laboratory A. Samples were analysed within 2 hours. The remainder of each sample was posted to laboratory B for analysis 72 hours later. Both laboratories examined one aliquot of 25 µL using 100 µm CellVision counting chambers. Sperm counts for the entire slide were reported. No exact count was performed at concentrations estimated >100 000/mL.

Results: We analysed the results of 197 paired PVSA. The Bland-Altman plot showed high agreement between fresh and postal sperm concentrations, with only seven samples outlying 95% CIs. Fresh PVSA sperm concentrations were classified higher than postal in 47 (22.1%) pairs and lower in 42 (19.8%). Most discrepancies were observed at sperm concentrations <1000 sperm/mL. 'No sperm seen' was reported in 86 (43.7%) pairs with false negatives encountered in both laboratories (McNemar's test p=0.045). Negative predictive values of postal compared with fresh results were >99% at all cut-off values from 1000 to 100 000 sperm/mL CONCLUSION: Our study showed high agreement in sperm concentrations of first PVSA performed on the same samples submitted fresh or by postal submission. The current postal testing strategy could be modified to encompass clearance on postal PVSA showing very low sperm concentrations.

新鲜和邮寄输精管结扎后精液样本中精子浓度的比较:一项前瞻性一致研究。
背景:大多数指南推荐输精管切除术后对新鲜样本进行精液分析(PVSA)以确认成功。邮政提交提高了合规性,尽管可靠性仍然存在争议。我们评估了同一样品,新鲜和邮寄后的PVSA精子浓度之间的一致性,并确定邮寄样品上除“未见精子”外的任何精子浓度水平是否可以用于建议停止其他避孕方法。方法:输精管结扎术后12周,男性向a实验室提交新鲜精液样本,在2小时内进行分析。每个样本的剩余部分在72小时后送到B实验室进行分析。两个实验室使用100µm CellVision计数室检测25µL的等分液。报告了整个幻灯片的精子数量。在估计浓度为100 000/mL时未进行精确计数。结果:对197例PVSA配对结果进行分析。Bland-Altman图显示新鲜精子浓度和邮寄精子浓度高度一致,只有7个样本偏离95% ci。新鲜PVSA精子浓度高于邮寄的47对(22.1%),低于邮寄的42对(19.8%)。结论:我们的研究表明,在新鲜或邮寄提交的相同样品中,首次PVSA的精子浓度高度一致。目前的邮政检测策略可以修改,以包括清除邮政PVSA显示非常低的精子浓度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Medicine-Reproductive Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
6.10%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health is a multiprofessional journal that promotes sexual and reproductive health and wellbeing, and best contraceptive practice, worldwide. It publishes research, debate and comment to inform policy and practice, and recognises the importance of professional-patient partnership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信