在家采集精液样本进行生育能力评估:是时候制定新标准了?

IF 1.6 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Minerva obstetrics and gynecology Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-04 DOI:10.23736/S2724-606X.23.05165-5
Paola Scaruffi, Francesca Bovis, Claudia Massarotti, Elena Maccarini, Sara Stigliani, Caterina DE Leo, Irene Gazzo, Fausta Sozzi, Paola Anserini
{"title":"在家采集精液样本进行生育能力评估:是时候制定新标准了?","authors":"Paola Scaruffi, Francesca Bovis, Claudia Massarotti, Elena Maccarini, Sara Stigliani, Caterina DE Leo, Irene Gazzo, Fausta Sozzi, Paola Anserini","doi":"10.23736/S2724-606X.23.05165-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In fertility clinics the standard approach to semen collection involves a private room close to the laboratory to avoid fluctuations in temperature and to control the time between collection and processing. There are still no firm conclusions whether collecting semen at home has any influence on sperm quality and reproductive competence. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the site of semen collection affects semen parameters.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study performed at a tertiary level public fertility center included 8634 semen samples from 5880 men undergoing fertility assessment from 2015 to 2021. The impact of sample collection site was evaluated using a generalized linear mixed model. A subgroup analysis comparing clinic to home collection within the same patient was performed on 1260 samples from 428 men by paired t-test or Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Samples collected at home (N.=3240) had significantly higher semen volume, sperm concentration and total sperm count respect to samples collected at clinic (N.=5530) (median (range): 2.9 (0.0-13.9) mL versus 2.9 (0.0-11.5) mL, P=0.016; 24.0 (0.0-252.0) million/mL versus 18.0 (0.0-390.0), P<0.0001; 64.6 (0.0-946.0) million versus 49.3 (0.0-1045.0), P<0.0001, respectively). There was no difference in abstinence period and sperm motility. Paired comparisons of semen characteristics in 428 patients with home-collected (N.=583) and clinic-collected (N.=677) samples confirmed a no negative effect on volume and total sperm count.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our data provide evidence for a not disadvantage with collection at home.</p>","PeriodicalId":18572,"journal":{"name":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","volume":" ","pages":"535-543"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Collecting semen samples at home for fertility assessment: time for a new standard?\",\"authors\":\"Paola Scaruffi, Francesca Bovis, Claudia Massarotti, Elena Maccarini, Sara Stigliani, Caterina DE Leo, Irene Gazzo, Fausta Sozzi, Paola Anserini\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S2724-606X.23.05165-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In fertility clinics the standard approach to semen collection involves a private room close to the laboratory to avoid fluctuations in temperature and to control the time between collection and processing. There are still no firm conclusions whether collecting semen at home has any influence on sperm quality and reproductive competence. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the site of semen collection affects semen parameters.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study performed at a tertiary level public fertility center included 8634 semen samples from 5880 men undergoing fertility assessment from 2015 to 2021. The impact of sample collection site was evaluated using a generalized linear mixed model. A subgroup analysis comparing clinic to home collection within the same patient was performed on 1260 samples from 428 men by paired t-test or Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Samples collected at home (N.=3240) had significantly higher semen volume, sperm concentration and total sperm count respect to samples collected at clinic (N.=5530) (median (range): 2.9 (0.0-13.9) mL versus 2.9 (0.0-11.5) mL, P=0.016; 24.0 (0.0-252.0) million/mL versus 18.0 (0.0-390.0), P<0.0001; 64.6 (0.0-946.0) million versus 49.3 (0.0-1045.0), P<0.0001, respectively). There was no difference in abstinence period and sperm motility. Paired comparisons of semen characteristics in 428 patients with home-collected (N.=583) and clinic-collected (N.=677) samples confirmed a no negative effect on volume and total sperm count.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our data provide evidence for a not disadvantage with collection at home.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18572,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"535-543\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-606X.23.05165-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-606X.23.05165-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在生育诊所,收集精液的标准方法包括一个靠近实验室的私人房间,以避免温度波动,并控制收集和处理之间的时间。至于在家收集精液是否会影响精子质量和生殖能力,目前还没有确切的结论。本研究的目的是评估精液采集地点是否影响精液参数。方法:本回顾性队列研究在三级公共生育中心进行,包括2015年至2021年接受生育评估的5880名男性的8634份精液样本。采用广义线性混合模型评价采集点的影响。通过配对t检验或Wilcoxon符号秩检验,对来自428名男性的1260份样本进行了亚组分析,比较了同一患者的诊所和家庭收集。结果:家中采集的样本(n =3240)的精液体积、精子浓度和总精子数明显高于诊所采集的样本(n =5530)(中位数(范围):2.9 (0.0-13.9)mL vs 2.9 (0.0-11.5) mL, P=0.016;24.0(0.0-252.0)百万/mL vs 18.0(0.0-390.0)百万/mL结论:我们的数据提供了证据,证明在家中采集并非劣势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Collecting semen samples at home for fertility assessment: time for a new standard?

Background: In fertility clinics the standard approach to semen collection involves a private room close to the laboratory to avoid fluctuations in temperature and to control the time between collection and processing. There are still no firm conclusions whether collecting semen at home has any influence on sperm quality and reproductive competence. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the site of semen collection affects semen parameters.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study performed at a tertiary level public fertility center included 8634 semen samples from 5880 men undergoing fertility assessment from 2015 to 2021. The impact of sample collection site was evaluated using a generalized linear mixed model. A subgroup analysis comparing clinic to home collection within the same patient was performed on 1260 samples from 428 men by paired t-test or Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test.

Results: Samples collected at home (N.=3240) had significantly higher semen volume, sperm concentration and total sperm count respect to samples collected at clinic (N.=5530) (median (range): 2.9 (0.0-13.9) mL versus 2.9 (0.0-11.5) mL, P=0.016; 24.0 (0.0-252.0) million/mL versus 18.0 (0.0-390.0), P<0.0001; 64.6 (0.0-946.0) million versus 49.3 (0.0-1045.0), P<0.0001, respectively). There was no difference in abstinence period and sperm motility. Paired comparisons of semen characteristics in 428 patients with home-collected (N.=583) and clinic-collected (N.=677) samples confirmed a no negative effect on volume and total sperm count.

Conclusions: Our data provide evidence for a not disadvantage with collection at home.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology
Minerva obstetrics and gynecology OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
191
期刊最新文献
Use of the Knutson's paste for the treatment of perineal wound dehiscence after vaginal delivery: a single-center clinical experience. Endometriosis and risk factors in pregnancy, labor and delivery: a case-control study. Recipients' age, fresh embryo and blastocyst-stage embryo transfer as favorable factors in a transnational oocyte donation program. The role of colposcopy in HPV vaccination era. The predictive role of uterocervical angle in labor outcomes: a narrative review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1