Cargando…
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 fi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Avicenna Research Institute
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10471943/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37663429 http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/jri.v24i3.13272 |
_version_ | 1785099964485992448 |
---|---|
author | Farias, Lincoln Bastos da Cunha Barreto-Vianna, André Rodrigues de Mello, Mariana Duque dos Santos, Alexandre Leseur da Fonte Ramos, Cristiane Fontoura, Paula |
author_facet | Farias, Lincoln Bastos da Cunha Barreto-Vianna, André Rodrigues de Mello, Mariana Duque dos Santos, Alexandre Leseur da Fonte Ramos, Cristiane Fontoura, Paula |
author_sort | Farias, Lincoln Bastos |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10471943 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Avicenna Research Institute |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104719432023-09-02 Comparison of Diff-Quick and Spermac Staining Methods for Sperm Morphology Evaluation Farias, Lincoln Bastos da Cunha Barreto-Vianna, André Rodrigues de Mello, Mariana Duque dos Santos, Alexandre Leseur da Fonte Ramos, Cristiane Fontoura, Paula J Reprod Infertil Original Article 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. Avicenna Research Institute 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10471943/ /pubmed/37663429 http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/jri.v24i3.13272 Text en Copyright© 2023, Avicenna Research Institute. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Farias, Lincoln Bastos da Cunha Barreto-Vianna, André Rodrigues de Mello, Mariana Duque dos Santos, Alexandre Leseur da Fonte Ramos, Cristiane Fontoura, Paula Comparison of Diff-Quick and Spermac Staining Methods for Sperm Morphology Evaluation |
title | Comparison of Diff-Quick and Spermac Staining Methods for Sperm Morphology Evaluation |
title_full | Comparison of Diff-Quick and Spermac Staining Methods for Sperm Morphology Evaluation |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Diff-Quick and Spermac Staining Methods for Sperm Morphology Evaluation |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Diff-Quick and Spermac Staining Methods for Sperm Morphology Evaluation |
title_short | Comparison of Diff-Quick and Spermac Staining Methods for Sperm Morphology Evaluation |
title_sort | comparison of diff-quick and spermac staining methods for sperm morphology evaluation |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10471943/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37663429 http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/jri.v24i3.13272 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fariaslincolnbastos comparisonofdiffquickandspermacstainingmethodsforspermmorphologyevaluation AT dacunhabarretoviannaandrerodrigues comparisonofdiffquickandspermacstainingmethodsforspermmorphologyevaluation AT demellomarianaduque comparisonofdiffquickandspermacstainingmethodsforspermmorphologyevaluation AT dossantosalexandreleseur comparisonofdiffquickandspermacstainingmethodsforspermmorphologyevaluation AT dafonteramoscristiane comparisonofdiffquickandspermacstainingmethodsforspermmorphologyevaluation AT fontourapaula comparisonofdiffquickandspermacstainingmethodsforspermmorphologyevaluation |