Sperm count Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
, , , , Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2024;46:e-rbgo36
, , , , Seminal cryopreservation causes significant damage to the sperm; therefore, different methods of cryopreservation have been studied. The aim of the study was to compare the effects of density gradient processing and washing/centrifugation with seminal plasma removal for cryopreservation in semen parameters.
Seminal samples of 26 normozoospermic patients were divided into 3 parts: with seminal plasma; after washing/centrifugation; and after selection through density gradient. The samples were cryopreserved for at least two weeks. Motility, sperm count, morphology and viability were evaluated before cryopreservation and after thawing.
Density gradient processing selected motile and viable sperm with normal morphology in fresh samples (p<0.05). Cryopreservation negatively affected all sperm parameters regardless of the processing performed, and even if the sperm recovery was lower in the density gradient after the thawing, progressive motility, total motility, viability and morphology remained higher (p<0.05).
Cryopreservation significantly compromises sperm parameters (motility, morphology, viability). In normozoospermic patients, the density gradients select better quality spermatozoa compared to other processing methods; this benefit was kept after thawing.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2024;46:e-rbgo36
, , , , Seminal cryopreservation causes significant damage to the sperm; therefore, different methods of cryopreservation have been studied. The aim of the study was to compare the effects of density gradient processing and washing/centrifugation with seminal plasma removal for cryopreservation in semen parameters.
Seminal samples of 26 normozoospermic patients were divided into 3 parts: with seminal plasma; after washing/centrifugation; and after selection through density gradient. The samples were cryopreserved for at least two weeks. Motility, sperm count, morphology and viability were evaluated before cryopreservation and after thawing.
Density gradient processing selected motile and viable sperm with normal morphology in fresh samples (p<0.05). Cryopreservation negatively affected all sperm parameters regardless of the processing performed, and even if the sperm recovery was lower in the density gradient after the thawing, progressive motility, total motility, viability and morphology remained higher (p<0.05).
Cryopreservation significantly compromises sperm parameters (motility, morphology, viability). In normozoospermic patients, the density gradients select better quality spermatozoa compared to other processing methods; this benefit was kept after thawing.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2008;30(11):561-565
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032008001100006
PURPOSE: to evaluate the influence of age on the quality of semen in men submitted to spermatic analysis in a human reproduction service, in cases of conjugal infertility. METHODS: a retrospective study in which the spermiograms of all men in process of investigation for conjugal infertility in a service of assisted reproduction in the Northeast of Brazil were evaluated from September 2002 to December 2004. A number of 531 individuals submitted to 531 spermatic evaluations were included in the study. The following parameters have been analyzed: spermatic volume, concentration, motility and morphology. The men under investigation have been divided in groups, according to the results obtained in each of the variables studied. Seminal volume groups were divided in: hypospermia, normospermia and hyperspermia. Spermatic concentration groups were divided in: azoospermia, oligospermia, normospermia and polyspermia. Motility groups were divided in: normal motility and asthenospermia. Morphology groups were divided in: normal morphology and teratospermia. The t test has been used to compare the average age of patients in groups with normal and in groups with altered parameters. The program XLSTAT (p<0.05) has been used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS: the individuals studied presented an average of 37±7.9 years old, with an average of seminal volume of 3±1.4 mL, a spermatic concentration of 61.4±66.4 spermatozoids by mL of semen, a progressive motility of 44.7±19.4% of the total of spermatozoids and normal morphology of 11.2±6.6% of the spermatozoids. Average age among groups were similar, except for that of individuals with hypospermia, which was significantly higher than the one from men with normospermia (39.6±10.3 versus 36.5±7.3, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: age interferes in an inversely proportional way on the ejaculated volume, but does not influence spermatic concentration, motility and morphology.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2008;30(11):561-565
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032008001100006
PURPOSE: to evaluate the influence of age on the quality of semen in men submitted to spermatic analysis in a human reproduction service, in cases of conjugal infertility. METHODS: a retrospective study in which the spermiograms of all men in process of investigation for conjugal infertility in a service of assisted reproduction in the Northeast of Brazil were evaluated from September 2002 to December 2004. A number of 531 individuals submitted to 531 spermatic evaluations were included in the study. The following parameters have been analyzed: spermatic volume, concentration, motility and morphology. The men under investigation have been divided in groups, according to the results obtained in each of the variables studied. Seminal volume groups were divided in: hypospermia, normospermia and hyperspermia. Spermatic concentration groups were divided in: azoospermia, oligospermia, normospermia and polyspermia. Motility groups were divided in: normal motility and asthenospermia. Morphology groups were divided in: normal morphology and teratospermia. The t test has been used to compare the average age of patients in groups with normal and in groups with altered parameters. The program XLSTAT (p<0.05) has been used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS: the individuals studied presented an average of 37±7.9 years old, with an average of seminal volume of 3±1.4 mL, a spermatic concentration of 61.4±66.4 spermatozoids by mL of semen, a progressive motility of 44.7±19.4% of the total of spermatozoids and normal morphology of 11.2±6.6% of the spermatozoids. Average age among groups were similar, except for that of individuals with hypospermia, which was significantly higher than the one from men with normospermia (39.6±10.3 versus 36.5±7.3, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: age interferes in an inversely proportional way on the ejaculated volume, but does not influence spermatic concentration, motility and morphology.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2006;28(11):652-657
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032006001100004
PURPOSE: to determine if the previous fertility history can predict current fertility status of a patient examined for couple’s infertility. METHODS: retrospective study involving semen analyses from 183 consecutive subfertile patients evaluated from September 2002 to March 2004. We excluded those patients who had undergone radio or chemotherapy, orchiectomy or vasectomy. Mean values of all analyses were used for patients with multiple semen analysis. Patients with more than 20x10(6) sperm/mL, motility higher than 50% and with normal strict sperm morphology higher than 14% were considered normal. Patients were divided into two groups, according to the fertility status: primary infertility (118 patients) and secondary infertility (65 patients). Data were analyzed according to the chi2 test and the Student t-test. RESULTS: no differences were detected in the mean age between patients with primary infertility, 37.3±6.3, and secondary infertility, 38.1±5.9; p=0.08. In the group of patients with primary infertility, 51.9% (61 patients) had a normal sperm concentration, 70.3% (83 patients) had normal sperm motility and 26.3% (31 patients) had normal sperm morphology. In the group of patients with secondary infertility, 53.8% (35 patients) had normal sperm concentration, 75.4% (49 patients) had normal sperm motility and 32.3% (21 patients) had normal sperm morphology. No significant differences were detected in sperm concentration (21.3x10(6)/mL versus 23.1x10(6)/mL; p=0.07), motility (45.2 versus 48.1%; p=0.08) and morphology (6.1 versus 6.4%; p=0.09) between groups of patients with primary and secondary infertility. CONCLUSIONS: semen analysis should be requested even in cases of prior male fertility. Physicians should not presume a patient to have a normal semen analysis based on his previous history of initiating a pregnancy.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2006;28(11):652-657
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032006001100004
PURPOSE: to determine if the previous fertility history can predict current fertility status of a patient examined for couple’s infertility. METHODS: retrospective study involving semen analyses from 183 consecutive subfertile patients evaluated from September 2002 to March 2004. We excluded those patients who had undergone radio or chemotherapy, orchiectomy or vasectomy. Mean values of all analyses were used for patients with multiple semen analysis. Patients with more than 20x10(6) sperm/mL, motility higher than 50% and with normal strict sperm morphology higher than 14% were considered normal. Patients were divided into two groups, according to the fertility status: primary infertility (118 patients) and secondary infertility (65 patients). Data were analyzed according to the chi2 test and the Student t-test. RESULTS: no differences were detected in the mean age between patients with primary infertility, 37.3±6.3, and secondary infertility, 38.1±5.9; p=0.08. In the group of patients with primary infertility, 51.9% (61 patients) had a normal sperm concentration, 70.3% (83 patients) had normal sperm motility and 26.3% (31 patients) had normal sperm morphology. In the group of patients with secondary infertility, 53.8% (35 patients) had normal sperm concentration, 75.4% (49 patients) had normal sperm motility and 32.3% (21 patients) had normal sperm morphology. No significant differences were detected in sperm concentration (21.3x10(6)/mL versus 23.1x10(6)/mL; p=0.07), motility (45.2 versus 48.1%; p=0.08) and morphology (6.1 versus 6.4%; p=0.09) between groups of patients with primary and secondary infertility. CONCLUSIONS: semen analysis should be requested even in cases of prior male fertility. Physicians should not presume a patient to have a normal semen analysis based on his previous history of initiating a pregnancy.
Search
Search in:
breast (42) breast cancer (42) breast neoplasms (95) Cesarean section (72) endometriosis (66) infertility (56) Maternal mortality (43) menopause (82) obesity (58) postpartum period (40) pregnancy (225) Pregnancy complications (99) Prenatal care (68) prenatal diagnosis (50) Prevalence (41) Quality of life (51) risk factors (94) ultrasonography (79) urinary incontinence (40) women's health (48)