精子形态评价中快速染色法与精子染色法的比较。

Q2 Medicine
Lincoln Bastos Farias, André Rodrigues da Cunha Barreto-Vianna, Mariana Duque de Mello, Alexandre Leseur Dos Santos, Cristiane da Fonte Ramos, Paula Fontoura
{"title":"精子形态评价中快速染色法与精子染色法的比较。","authors":"Lincoln Bastos Farias,&nbsp;André Rodrigues da Cunha Barreto-Vianna,&nbsp;Mariana Duque de Mello,&nbsp;Alexandre Leseur Dos Santos,&nbsp;Cristiane da Fonte Ramos,&nbsp;Paula Fontoura","doi":"10.18502/jri.v24i3.13272","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The objective of the current study was comparing the impact of two staining techniques on semen morphological parameters and their influence on patient diagnosis. The ideal staining method should preserve cell integrity while providing detailed information.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semen samples from fifty men were stained using Diff-Quick or Spermac methods. Morphological parameters were classified based on the Tygerberg criteria, and final diagnosis was according to WHO manual guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed through conducting paired t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, with GLIMMIX and Fisher's exact test for determining the significance (p≤0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both staining methods highlighted head and tail regions, with Spermac offering better visualization of the midpiece. Spermac demonstrated fewer normal spermatozoa (2.8±0.3%) compared to Diff-Quick (3.98±0.4%; p=0.0385). Midpiece abnormalities were more evident with Spermac (55.7±2.1%) than Diff-Quick (24.8±2.0%; p<0.0001). No significant difference was found in head and tail abnormalities (p>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Diff-Quick staining resulted in a higher proportion of normal spermatozoa, primarily due to its midpiece evaluation. The choice of staining method significantly impacts the diagnosis of infertile males. These findings have important implications for clinical practice and future research, suggesting the need for further investigations to assess different staining methods and determine optimal diagnostic thresholds.</p>","PeriodicalId":38826,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Reproduction and Infertility","volume":"24 3","pages":"166-170"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10471943/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Diff-Quick and Spermac Staining Methods for Sperm Morphology Evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"Lincoln Bastos Farias,&nbsp;André Rodrigues da Cunha Barreto-Vianna,&nbsp;Mariana Duque de Mello,&nbsp;Alexandre Leseur Dos Santos,&nbsp;Cristiane da Fonte Ramos,&nbsp;Paula Fontoura\",\"doi\":\"10.18502/jri.v24i3.13272\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The objective of the current study was comparing the impact of two staining techniques on semen morphological parameters and their influence on patient diagnosis. The ideal staining method should preserve cell integrity while providing detailed information.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semen samples from fifty men were stained using Diff-Quick or Spermac methods. Morphological parameters were classified based on the Tygerberg criteria, and final diagnosis was according to WHO manual guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed through conducting paired t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, with GLIMMIX and Fisher's exact test for determining the significance (p≤0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both staining methods highlighted head and tail regions, with Spermac offering better visualization of the midpiece. Spermac demonstrated fewer normal spermatozoa (2.8±0.3%) compared to Diff-Quick (3.98±0.4%; p=0.0385). Midpiece abnormalities were more evident with Spermac (55.7±2.1%) than Diff-Quick (24.8±2.0%; p<0.0001). No significant difference was found in head and tail abnormalities (p>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Diff-Quick staining resulted in a higher proportion of normal spermatozoa, primarily due to its midpiece evaluation. The choice of staining method significantly impacts the diagnosis of infertile males. These findings have important implications for clinical practice and future research, suggesting the need for further investigations to assess different staining methods and determine optimal diagnostic thresholds.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38826,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Reproduction and Infertility\",\"volume\":\"24 3\",\"pages\":\"166-170\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10471943/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Reproduction and Infertility\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18502/jri.v24i3.13272\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Reproduction and Infertility","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/jri.v24i3.13272","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究的目的是比较两种染色技术对精液形态参数的影响及其对患者诊断的影响。理想的染色方法应该在提供详细信息的同时保持细胞的完整性。方法:对50例男性精液标本采用Diff-Quick法或精子法进行染色。形态学参数根据Tygerberg标准进行分类,最终诊断根据世界卫生组织手册指南。通过配对t检验或Wilcoxon秩和检验进行统计分析,GLIMMIX和Fisher精确检验确定显著性(p≤0.05)。结果:两种染色方法都突出了头部和尾部区域,而精子染色可以更好地显示中段。与Diff-Quick(3.98±0.4%;p=0.0385)相比,精子染色显示正常精子较少(2.8±0.3%)。精子中段异常(55.7±2.1%)比Diff-Quik(24.8±2.0%;p0.05)更明显。结论:Diff-Quic染色导致正常精子比例较高,主要是由于其中段评估。染色方法的选择对不育男性的诊断有显著影响。这些发现对临床实践和未来的研究具有重要意义,表明需要进一步研究来评估不同的染色方法并确定最佳诊断阈值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of Diff-Quick and Spermac Staining Methods for Sperm Morphology Evaluation.

Comparison of Diff-Quick and Spermac Staining Methods for Sperm Morphology Evaluation.

Background: The objective of the current study was comparing the impact of two staining techniques on semen morphological parameters and their influence on patient diagnosis. The ideal staining method should preserve cell integrity while providing detailed information.

Methods: Semen samples from fifty men were stained using Diff-Quick or Spermac methods. Morphological parameters were classified based on the Tygerberg criteria, and final diagnosis was according to WHO manual guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed through conducting paired t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, with GLIMMIX and Fisher's exact test for determining the significance (p≤0.05).

Results: Both staining methods highlighted head and tail regions, with Spermac offering better visualization of the midpiece. Spermac demonstrated fewer normal spermatozoa (2.8±0.3%) compared to Diff-Quick (3.98±0.4%; p=0.0385). Midpiece abnormalities were more evident with Spermac (55.7±2.1%) than Diff-Quick (24.8±2.0%; p<0.0001). No significant difference was found in head and tail abnormalities (p>0.05).

Conclusion: Diff-Quick staining resulted in a higher proportion of normal spermatozoa, primarily due to its midpiece evaluation. The choice of staining method significantly impacts the diagnosis of infertile males. These findings have important implications for clinical practice and future research, suggesting the need for further investigations to assess different staining methods and determine optimal diagnostic thresholds.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Reproduction and Infertility
Journal of Reproduction and Infertility Medicine-Reproductive Medicine
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信