Evaluation of male fertility is based predominantly on results from semen analysis and determination of the sperm concentration is one of the main parameters of the analysis. The availability of a fully automated videomicrographic digital image analyser would offer both an objective and rapid method for determination of the sperm concentration. In the present study the sperm concentration in 327 semen samples was determined by haemocytometer according to the World Health Organization guidelines, and also by a computer-assisted digital image analyser system. Results were classified according to the routine procedure (haemocytometer) before statistical analyses. The computerized measurements caused a shift to the right in the frequency distribution of sperm concentration. Sperm concentrations were more often overestimated significantly (P less than 0.001) by the computerized measurements in semen samples with concentrations up to 80.0 x 10(6)/ml. This overestimation seemed to be caused by the presence of particles in seminal plasma that were recognized incorrectly as sperm by the computer program. The computerized digital image analyser gave an average sperm concentration of 2.2 +/- 0.6 x 10(6)/ml (mean +/- SEM) in 17 azoospermic semen samples while the routine procedure did not detect the presence of sperm cells. After removing the seminal plasma by washing and centrifugation with culture medium, and using the swim-up procedure to harvest motile sperm, the computerized measurements showed comparable results with the routine procedure for those sperm preparations (n = 44) with sperm concentrations greater than 5.0 x 10(6)/ml.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Background: It is generally beneficial for triplet gestation or high-order multiple pregnancies to operate multifetal pregnancy reduction (MFPR) after assisted reproductive techniques. However, data on pregnancy outcomes is lacking regarding dichorionic triamniotic (DCTA) and trichorionic triplets (TCTA) pregnancy.Method: This research analyzes the difference between 128 DCTA and 179 TCTA pregnancies with or without MFPR after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles between January 2015 and June 2020. The subdivided subgroups of the two groups are reduction to singleton, reduction to dichorionic twins, and anticipation management groups. We also compare the pregnancy and obstetric outcomes between 2104 dichorionic twins and 122 monochorionic twins.Result: The research subgroups were DCTA to monochorionic singleton pregnancies (n=76), DCTA to dichorionic twin pregnancies (n=18), DCTA-anticipation management (n=34), TCTA to monochorionic singleton pregnancies (n=31), TCTA to dichorionic twin pregnancies (n=130), and TCTA-anticipation management (n=18). In DCTA-anticipation management group, the complete miscarriage rate is dramatically higher, and the survival rate and the rate of take-home babies are lower. However, there was no difference between the rates of complete miscarriages, survival rates, and take-home babies in TCTA-anticipation management group. But the complete miscarriage rate of DCTA-anticipation management was obviously higher than that of TCTA-anticipation management group (29.41 vs. 5.56%, p=0.044). For obstetric outcomes, MFPR to singleton group had higher gestational week and average birth weight, but lower premature delivery, gestational hypertension rates and low birth weight in both DCTA and TCTA pregnancy groups (all p<0.05). Monochorionic twins have higher rates of complete, early, and late miscarriage, premature delivery, and late premature delivery, and lower survival rate and twin survival rate rates (p<0.05).Conclusion: MFPR could improve gestational week and average birth weight, reducing premature delivery, LBW, and gestational hypertension rates in DCTA and TCTA pregnancies. Monochorionic twins have worse pregnancy and obstetric outcomes. MFPR to singleton is preferable recommended in the pregnancy and obstetric management of complex triplets with monochorionic pair.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.