Suppr超能文献

评估克鲁格严格形态学标准相对于世界卫生组织第四版标准的临床价值。

Assessing the clinical value of the Kruger strict morphology criteria over the World Health Organization fourth edition criteria.

作者信息

Wald Gal, Punjani Nahid, Hayden Russell, Feliciano Miriam, Dudley Vanessa, Goldstein Marc

机构信息

Center for Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.

出版信息

F S Rep. 2021 Apr 19;2(2):176-180. doi: 10.1016/j.xfre.2021.04.003. eCollection 2021 Jun.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess if the newer Kruger strict morphology (WHO5; normal ≥4%) adds any clinical value beyond the criteria of the World Health Organization fourth edition (WHO4; normal ≥14%).

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Tertiary hospital.

PATIENTS

Men without known azoospermia who had semen analysis (SA) collected over a 10-year period of time.

INTERVENTIONS

Morphology classification under Kruger WHO5 strict criteria and WHO4 criteria.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Correlation between the WHO5 and WHO4 morphological classifications.

RESULTS

A total of 4,510 SAs were identified during the study period. Of these, both Kruger WHO5 and WHO4 morphologies were included in 932 SAs (20.7%) from a total of 691 men. The median age of the men was 37 years (interquartile range, 32.0-43.8 years). The mean (±SD) semen volume, sperm concentration, and motility were 2.6 ± 1.4 mL, 50.0 ± 35.6 × 10/mL, and 53.1% ± 18.6%, respectively. The correlation between the WHO4 and WHO5 morphology assessments was high (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.94). Only 545 (58.5%) of 932 SAs had abnormal Kruger WHO5 morphology, of which 543 (99.6%) of 545 also had abnormal morphology by the WHO4 criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The Kruger WHO5 and WHO4 morphologic criteria correlate closely. Only two men (0.4%) with an abnormal Kruger morphology had normal WHO4 morphology. Given the limited predictive value of sperm morphology, the additional cost and effort of Kruger criteria may not be warranted in lieu of, or in addition to, the WHO4 classification.

摘要

目的

评估相较于世界卫生组织第四版标准(WHO4;正常形态精子比例≥14%),更新后的克鲁格严格形态学标准(WHO5;正常形态精子比例≥4%)是否具有额外的临床价值。

设计

回顾性研究。

地点

三级医院。

患者

10年间进行精液分析(SA)且无已知无精子症的男性。

干预措施

按照克鲁格WHO5严格标准和WHO4标准进行形态学分类。

主要观察指标

WHO5和WHO4形态学分类之间的相关性。

结果

研究期间共识别出4510份精液分析样本。其中,来自691名男性的932份精液分析样本(20.7%)同时包含克鲁格WHO5和WHO4形态学评估结果。这些男性的中位年龄为37岁(四分位间距为32.0 - 43.8岁)。精液体积、精子浓度和活力的均值(±标准差)分别为2.6 ± 1.4 mL、50.0 ± 35.6×10⁶/mL和53.1% ± 18.6%。WHO4和WHO5形态学评估之间的相关性很高(斯皮尔曼相关系数 = 0.94)。932份精液分析样本中只有545份(58.5%)的克鲁格WHO5形态学结果异常,其中这545份中的543份(99.6%)按照WHO4标准形态学结果也异常。

结论

克鲁格WHO5和WHO4形态学标准密切相关。只有两名男性(0.4%)的克鲁格形态学结果异常但WHO4形态学结果正常。鉴于精子形态学的预测价值有限,采用克鲁格标准所增加的成本和工作量可能并不值得,无论是替代WHO4分类还是作为其补充。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/029d/8267392/0e08dd8a4faf/gr1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验