Comparison of three staining methods for the morphological evaluation of human spermatozoa

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorHenkel R.
dc.contributor.authorSchreiber G.
dc.contributor.authorSturmhoefel A.
dc.contributor.authorHipler U.-C.
dc.contributor.authorZermann D.H.
dc.contributor.authorMenkveld R.
dc.date.accessioned2011-05-15T16:16:25Z
dc.date.available2011-05-15T16:16:25Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare different staining methods to evaluate human sperm morphology. Design: Prospective study. Setting: Patients at the Departments of Dermatology and Urology, University of Jena, Germany. Patient(s): A total of 94 randomly collected patients attending the andrological outpatient clinics of the Departments of Dermatology and Urology, University of Jena, Germany. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Statistical comparison of resultant standard morphological parameters (mean percentages) after staining according to Papanicolaou and Shorr methods and with Testsimplets® prestained slides. Result(s): All morphological parameters investigated (percent normal morphology, percent head, midpiece, and flagellar abnormalities) correlated statistically significantly positively, however with markedly lower correlation coefficients for the Testsimplets®results. As compared with the mean Papanicolaou (4.78% ± 2.54%) and Shorr staining (4.75% ± 2.64%) results, a statistically significantly lower percentage of morphologically normal spermatozoa was determined after using the Testsimplets® slides (3.89% ± 2.53%). In general, the mean values of all parameters differed for all comparisons with the Testsimplets® slides and especially for the percentage of flagellar defects but not between the Papanicolaou and the Shorr staining results. Conclusion(s): The results show an extensive agreement between the Papanicolaou- and Shorr-stained smears, whereas Testsimplets® staining exhibited statistically significant deviations. Because the correct evaluation of sperm morphology is of essence within the scope of assisted reproduction and in andrological diagnostics, the use of rapid staining methods cannot be recommended. © 2008 American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
dc.description.versionArticle
dc.identifier.citationFertility and Sterility
dc.identifier.citation89
dc.identifier.citation2
dc.identifier.issn00150282
dc.identifier.other10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.03.027
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/13774
dc.subjectarticle
dc.subjectcell structure
dc.subjectcontrolled study
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectintermethod comparison
dc.subjectmajor clinical study
dc.subjectmale
dc.subjectpriority journal
dc.subjectspermatozoon
dc.subjectspermatozoon count
dc.subjectstaining
dc.subjectstructure analysis
dc.titleComparison of three staining methods for the morphological evaluation of human spermatozoa
dc.typeArticle
Files
Collections
Stellenbosch University - Scopus Tygerberg Hospital Publications