精子DNA荧光分析与两种常规精液分析方法的比较

目的 :比较计算机辅助的DNA荧光染色精子分析系统 (简称荧光CASA)与两种常规精液分析方法。　方法 :随机选择 2 2例男性不育患者 ,采用荧光CASA、灰度CASA和人工技术分析精液 ,以荧光CASA检测的精子密度为基础 ,分别与常规精液分析及灰度CASA的结果进行比较。　结果 :荧光CASA检测可以区别非精子颗粒及死活精子。与荧光CASA分析方法获得的精子密度相比 ,常规精液分析和灰度CASA法获得的精子密度差值绝对值的平均值分别为 (9.2 3± 8.0 1)× 10 6/ml和 (10 .2 7± 6 .2 2 )× 10 6/ml,检测精子密度误差的百分率分别为 (4 9.0 6±4 9.87) %和 (4 3.39± 2 5 .5 6 ) %。　结论 :荧光CASA更符合最新WHO男性不育实验室诊断标准的要求 ,推荐在临床工作中使用DNA荧光染色精子分析系统来分析精子特性 ,尤其是精子密度分析。

Semen Analysis of DNA Fluorescence Detection and Two Other Routine Analyzing Methods

OBJECTIVE: To compare semen analysis system of computer-aided sperm analysis (CASA) dyeing with DNA fluorescence (simplified as fluorescence CASA) with two other routine semen analyzing methods. METHODS: Twenty-two male infertile patients were selected at random as research subjects, and semen analysis was performed with fluorescence CASA, grey CASA, and microscopic analysis. RESULTS: Fluorescence CASA could distinguish sperm from non-sperm granules, as well as living from dead sperm. Compared with the sperm density detected by fluorescence CASA, the disparities of sperm densities detected by microscopic analysis and grey CASA were (9.23 +/- 8.01) x 10(6)/ml and (10.27 +/- 6.22) x 10(6)/ml, and the disparity rates of sperm density were 49.06% +/- 49.87% and 43.39% +/- 25.56% respectively. CONCLUSION: Fluorescence CASA was more conformable to the requirements of latest WHO laboratory manual for the examination of human semen, and worth recommending for the clinical analysis of semen features, especially sperm density.