Location of semen collection and semen quality: clinic-collected versus home-collected samples / 中华男科学杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To investigate the differences in semen quality between samples collected by masturbation in the clinic and at home.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Based on the WHO guidelines, we analyzed the ejaculates collected by masturbation in the clinic and at home from 342 men under infertility assessment and measured the contents of such biochemical markers in the seminal plasma as neutral α-glucosidase, zinc, and fructose. According to the location of semen collection, we divided the samples into two groups, clinic-collected and home-collected, and analyzed the differences in the semen parameters between the two groups with the SPSS 16.0 software.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Compared with the clinic-collected semen, the home-collected samples had significantly higher mean values in semen volume (4.0 vs 4.9%), sperm concentration (41 vs 64 x 10(6)/ml), total sperm count (175 vs 270 x 10(6) per ejaculate), progressive sperm motility (40 vs 52%), total count of progressively motile sperm (82 vs 135 x 10(6) per ejaculate) (all P <0.05). No significant differences were found between the two groups in normal sperm morphology (4.0 vs 5.0%) and the contents of neutral α-glucosidase (26 vs 24 mU per ejaculate), zinc (8.0 vs 8.0 μmol per ejaculate), and fructose (62 vs 60 μmol per ejaculate) (all P >0.05). Abnormal sperm concentration (<20 x 10(6)/ml) was observed in significantly fewer of the home-collected samples than the clinic-collected ones (18% [62/342] vs 30% [103/342], P<0.05), and so was abnormal progressive sperm motility (<32%) (64% [219/342] vs 75% [256/342], P<0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Our findings show that semen samples collected by masturbation at home has a higher quality than those collected in the clinic. So the location of semen collection should be taken into consideration in infertility investigation.</p>

Effects of a microfluidic sperm sorter on sperm routine parameters and DNA integrity / 中华男科学杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To investigate the effects of a microfluidic sperm sorter on the routine parameters and DNA integrity of human sperm.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>We divided 40 semen samples into two aliquots and performed sperm sorting using a self-made polydimethylsiloxane microfluidic sperm sorter and the swim-up method, respectively. Then we evaluated and compared the effects of these two methods on the sperm routine parameters and DNA integrity by computer-assisted sperm analysis and sperm chromatin dispersion test.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>After processing, sperm motility, normal morphology and tail hypoosmotic swelling rate were significantly improved, while sperm DNA damage remarkably decreased (P < 0.01). The microfluidic sperm sorter achieved a significantly lower rate of sperm DNA damage than the swim-up method ([ 8.4 +/- 5.8 ]% vs [16.4 +/- 9.2] %, P < 0.01), but no statistically significant differences were found in all other parameters between the two methods.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>High-quality sperm with less DNA integrity damage could be obtained in sperm sorting with the microfluidic sperm sorter.</p>