4.2 Article

The effect of seminal plasma cadmium and lead levels on semen parameters in male subjects of infertile couples: a prospective cohort study

期刊

JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY
卷 41, 期 6, 页码 946-950

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2020.1820459

关键词

Atomic absorption spectrometry; cadmium; infertility; lead; male factor; semen quality; seminal plasma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cadmium exposure may contribute to decreased semen volume in male partners of infertile couples, but there is no significant association with sperm parameters.
The aim of this prospective study was to investigate whether there is a relationship between seminal plasma cadmium (Cd) and lead (Pb) levels and semen parameters in male partners of infertile couples. Two hundred fifty one (251) men recruited with no history of occupational exposure to toxic metals. After semen analysis, seminal Cd and Pb levels were measured using atomic absorption spectrometry. Cadmium levels in men with hypospermia was significantly higher than men with normal semen volume (p = .049). In contrast, there was no statistically significant difference in median seminal Pb levels between men with hypospermia and men with normal semen volume (p = .13). There was no statistically significant association between seminal plasma Cd and Pb levels sperm concentration, motility, morphology and total progressively motile sperm count. These findings suggest that environmental Cd exposure may contribute to low semen volume in male partners of infertile couples. IMPACT STATEMENT What is already known on this subject? Toxic metals may adversely affect both male and female reproductive system. What the results of this study add? Seminal plasma cadmium levels in men with hypospermia were statistically significantly higher than men with normal semen volume. What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Patients should be informed about possible adverse effects of toxic metals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据