Clinical Efficacy of Prodom-Assisted Urokinase in the Treatment of Male Infertility Caused by Impaired Semen Liquefaction

Table 4

Compare the efficacy of different treatments in this study.

Treatments	Therapeutic efficiency		Therapeutic inefficiency		Total
	n1	%	n2	%
PAUT	72	94.74 (72/76)^Δ Φ Σ	4	5.26 (4/76)	76
SAUT	29	87.88 (29/33)^Δ Φ Σ	4	12.12 (4/33)	33
TT	29	65.91 (29/44)^Δ	15	34.09 (15/44)	44
PAUT+TT	17	50.00 (17/34)^Δ	17	50.00 (17/34)	34
SAUT+TT	17	51.52 (17/33)^Δ	16	48.48 (16/33)	33
AIH	23	56.10 (23/41)^Δ	18	43.90 (18/41)	41
Total	187	71.65 (187/261)	74	28.35 (74/261)	261

Abbreviations: PAUT: prodom-assisted urokinase treatment; SAUT: syringe-assisted urokinase treatment; TT: traditional treatment; AIH: artificial insemination with husband’s semen. The chi-square check is used for Row x List, and the efficacy of the above six treatment regimens is not all the same (χ²=38.213 and ^Δ). Among them, there was no significant difference in the efficacy of PUAT and SAUT (χ²=0.270 and ^Φ), but there was difference between them and other treatments (all ^Σ). It can be considered that the efficacy of PAUT and SAUT was higher than that of the other treatments.