Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||SPECIAL RESEARCH METHODS FOR PROVING AZOOSPERMIA: COMPARISON BETWEEN CYTOSPIN AND ULTRACENTRIFUGATION TECHNIQUE|
|Authors:||MONTEIRO, Rosa Alice; PARIZ, Juliana; PIERI, Patricia; HALLAK, Jorge|
|Citation:||ANDROLOGY, v.1, suppl.2, Special Issue, p.101-101, 2013|
|Abstract:||Introdution and Objectives: The confirmation of azoospermia is indicated for proper reproductive orientation of infertile man. The centrifugation method of cell suspension on slides (Cytospin) is widely used for this purpose, although not always easy to identify isolated sperm heads due to the large amount of cellular debris. The objective was to compare the Cytospin method with Ultracentrifugation technique developed in our laboratory for proving azoospermia. Methods: We included semen of patients of reproductive age with a diagnosis of non-obstructive azoospermia in two semen routine analyzes, according to the World Health Organization criteria (WHO, 2010). A special search for proving azoospermia was done by one of the two methods: 1) Cytospin – special equipment that applies rotational force directly to a slide containing the sample to be analyzed, 2) Ultracentrifugation, method developed by our group, which consists of double processing of seminal samples by microultracentrifugation. The slides were then fixed, stained with NF-PICS and analyzed by light microscopy for the following parameters: sperm morphological integrity and amount of cellular debris. We excluded samples in which there was confirmation of azoospermia. Results: A total of 22 samples were included in the study, seven samples were submitted to cytospin and 15 to ultracentrifugation. Statistical difference was observed comparing the two methods:  The integrity of sperm: 72% of the Cytospin samples showed non intact sperm (either no tail and/or middle piece), versus 100% in intact sperm obtained by the ultracentrifugation method (p = 0.003),  Cellular debris: found in 100% of samples processed by Cytospin and only 28% of those obtained by ultracentrifugation (p = 0.002). Conclusion: The ultracentrifugation method showed to be as effective as the Cytospin. Moreover, the ultracentrifugation method developed is simpler, of much less cost and has the additional advantage of ease and straightforward interpretation due to sperm integrity and slides without cellular debris.|
|Appears in Collections:|
Comunicações em Eventos - HC/ICHC
Comunicações em Eventos - HC/ICr
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.