E-ISSN: 2146-8052
Comparison of Spermac and Diff-quik staining methods in the assessment of sperm morphology in asthenozoopermia cases
PDF
Cite
Share
Request
Research
VOLUME: 50 ISSUE: 1
P: 23-26
March 2008

Comparison of Spermac and Diff-quik staining methods in the assessment of sperm morphology in asthenozoopermia cases

Gulhane Med J 2008;50(1):23-26
Elvan Ok 1
Doğan Özyurt 2
Bülent Gülekli 3
1. Zonguldak Karaelmas Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Histoloji ve Embriyoloji AD
2. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Histoloji ve Embriyoloji AD, İzmir
3. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum AD, Üremeye Yardımcı Tedavi Merkezi, İzmir
No information available.
No information available
Received Date: 04.07.2007
Accepted Date: 28.02.2008
PDF
Cite
Share
Request

ABSTRACT

Sperm motility problems (Asthenozoopermia) is one of the major causes of male infertility. In cases with asthenozoopermia infertility increases to a greater extent when sperm morphology disorders are added to coexisting motility disorders. A total of 65 males (21 males with sperm motility disorder and 44 males without this disorder) who referred to the in vitro fertilization unit of Dokuz Eylul University Medical School between November 15, 2004 and April 5, 2005 were included in the present study. Spermac and Diff-quik staining methods were used in the assessment of sperm morphology in all semen samples. Test results showed consistency with both staining methods on 55 semen samples examined. Sperm morphology was normal in 32 semen samples with consistent test results by both methods, while the percentage of morphology was low in 23 cases. In 7 of remaining 10 cases, the sperm morphology was in the normal range with Diff-quik staining method while an abnormal percentage was detected with Spermac method. In 3 cases the sperm morphology was within normal limits with Spermac staining method while Diff-quik staining method demonstrated abnormal sperm morphology. Statistical analysis with Mc Nemar test demonstrated that both staining methods were reliable. Since neither of the two methods used in the evaluation of sperm morphology has proven superiority to the other, a cost reduction may be provided by choosing the economical one.