A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

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

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study compared two staining techniques, Diff-Quick and Spermac, to see how they affect the assessment of sperm morphology and influence infertility diagnoses.
  • Results showed that while both methods clearly displayed sperm structures, Diff-Quick identified a higher percentage of normal spermatozoa compared to Spermac, which highlighted more midpiece abnormalities.
  • The findings suggest that the choice of staining technique is crucial for accurate diagnoses of male infertility, indicating a need for further research on optimal methods.

Article Abstract

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10471943PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/jri.v24i3.13272DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

staining methods
12
diff-quick spermac
8
morphological parameters
8
staining method
8
normal spermatozoa
8
staining
7
spermac
5
comparison diff-quick
4
spermac staining
4
methods
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!