Efficacy of two sperm preparation techniques in reducing non-specific bacterial species from human semen
Context: Artificial reproductive techniques using seminal preparations with bacteria may cause pelvic inflammatory disease and its sequalae. Aims: To assess efficacy of two sperm preparation techniques to clear bacteria and the effect of bacteriospermia on sperm recovery rates. Settings and Design:...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of human reproductive sciences 2013-04, Vol.6 (2), p.152-157 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Context: Artificial reproductive techniques using seminal preparations with bacteria may cause pelvic inflammatory disease and its sequalae. Aims: To assess efficacy of two sperm preparation techniques to clear bacteria and the effect of bacteriospermia on sperm recovery rates. Settings and Design: A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out among males of subfertile couples. Subjects and Methods: Semen samples were randomly allocated into swim-up method (group S, n = 68) and density gradient method (group D, n = 50) for sperm preparation. Seminal fluid analysis and bacterial cultures were performed in each sample before and after sperm preparation. Statistical Analysis: McNemar′s chi-squared test and independent samples t-test in SPSS version 16.0 were used. Results: Organisms were found in 86 (72.88%) out of 118 samples, before sperm preparation; Streptococcus species (n = 40, 46.51% of which 14 were Group D Streptococcus species), Coagulase negative Staphylococcus species (n = 17, 19.76%), Staphylococcus aureus (n = 13, 15.11%), Coliform species (n = 11, 12.79% of which 09 were Escherichia coli) and Corynebacterium species (n = 5, 5.81%). There was a statistically significant reduction of culture positive samples in raw vs. processed samples; in group S, 49 (72.05%) vs. 16 (23.52%) and in group D, 37 (74%) vs. 18 (36%). In group S and D, mean (SD) recovery rates of culture positive vs. culture negative samples were 39.44% (SD-14.02) vs. 44.22% (SD-22.38), P = 0.39 and 52.50% (SD-37.16) vs. 49.58% (SD-40.32), P = 0.82 respectively. Conclusions: Both sperm preparation methods significantly reduced bacteria in semen, but total clearance was not achieved. Sperm recovery rate was not affected by bacteriospermia. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0974-1208 1998-4766 |
DOI: | 10.4103/0974-1208.117169 |