4.1 Article

Antibiotic treatment of asymptomatic Ureaplasma infection improves semen parameters in infertile men

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BIOMEDICINE
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 139-145

出版社

UNIV SOUTH BOHEMIA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jab.2016.11.004

关键词

Ureaplasma species; Asymptomatic infections; Male infertility; Semen parameters; Antibiotic treatment

资金

  1. Tehran University of Medical Sciences & Health Services [93-03-30/26350]
  2. Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine [93/19/80024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of asymptomatic infections caused by Ureaplasma species in male infertility and the efficacy of antibiotics in treatment of this failure is not yet definitely determined. A total of 165 infertile males having abnormal semen parameters (study group) as well as 165 healthy fertile men (control group) were included in this study. Semen samples were taken from all participants and after analyzing, undergone real-time PCR, microbial culture, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) as well as total antioxidant capacity (TAC) assays. Infected individuals of study group were treated with antibiotic. One month after the treatment completion, second semen samples were taken and undergone all the tests mentioned. The frequency of Ureaplasma spp. was significantly higher in the infertile men compared with the fertile ones (36.4% versus 11.5%; p < 0.001). Most of semen parameters were improved (p < 0.05) and reached their normal range, the level of TAC elevated (p < 0.001), and ROS level (p = 0.003) as well as ROS/TAC ratio (p = 0.003) reduced after antibiotic treatment. Moreover, wives of 37 infertile men (61.7%) became pregnant six months after the treatment completion. These findings indicate that Ureaplasma species are correlated with male infertility and that antibiotic therapy can improve the semen parameters and treat the male infertility. (C) 2016 Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice. Published by Elsevier Sp. z o. o. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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