摘要
目的 对以色列计数板(IC)、Makler计数板(MC)、精子质量分析仪(SQA)和血细胞计数板(CC)应用于精液常规分析的结果进行比较,并作出评估。方法 用4四种方法对来自有正常生育力的健康男性的64份精液标本进行分析。结果 在计数精子密度方面,IC、MC和SQA的结果有较好的一致性,3者之间无统计学上显著性差异;而CC与IC和SQA之间存在统计学上显著性差异,其p值分别为0.002和0.005。在计数精子活率方面,CC与MC和SQA之间也有统计学上显著性差异,其p值分别为0和0.02。我们使用了IC和MC检测前向运动精子百分率,结果显示两者之间无统计学上显著性差异,两者之间有较好的一致性。结论 在精液常规分析中,IC、MC和SQA这3种方法的结果虽具有较好的一致性,但不如CC准确,在临床应用时,应注明使用何种方法进行测定;也可将IC、MC和SQA等方法与CC进行比较,计算出校正系数予以调整。
Objective To compare semen routine analysis results using Israel counting chamber (IC), Maklerchamber (MC), sperm quality analyzer (SQA) and cytometer chamber (CC), and to evaluate these four methods.Mehods 64 samples of semen of healthy fertile men were analyzed using upper mentioned four chambers. ResultsIn respect of sperm concentration counting, there are no statistical significant differences among IC, MC and SQA;there is significant difference between CC and IC, SQA (p=0.002, 0.005 respectively). In respect of sperm motility,there is also significant difference between CC and MC, SQA (p=0, 0.02 respectively). While counting progressivesperm motility, there is no significant difference between IC and MC. Conclusion During sperm analysis, there areno significant differences among IC, MC, and SQA, but the accuracy of these three methods is worse than the methodusing CC. When these three methods are used, specific method should be noticed; or results should be adjusted,according to conversion index which can be gotten by comparing IC, MC, SQA with CC.
出处
《中国男科学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
2004年第4期34-35,共2页
Chinese Journal of Andrology
关键词
精液常规分析
精子计数板
semen routine analysis
sperm counting chamber
