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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Farias, Lincoln Bastos, da Cunha Barreto-Vianna, André Rodrigues, de Mello, Mariana Duque, dos Santos, Alexandre Leseur, da Fonte Ramos, Cristiane, Fontoura, Paula
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