Comparative study of Sperm Motility Analysis System and conventional microscopic semen analysis

Background and AimConventional manual sperm analysis still shows variations in structure, process and outcome although World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines present an appropriate method for sperm analysis. In the present study a new system for sperm analysis, Sperm Motility Analysis System (SMAS), was compared with manual semen analysis based on WHO guidelines.Materials and methodsSamples from 30 infertility patients and 21 healthy volunteers were subjected to manual microscopic analysis and SMAS analysis, simultaneously. We compared these two methods with respect to sperm concentration and percent motility.ResultsSperm concentrations obtained by SMAS (Csmas) and manual microscopic analyses on WHO guidelines (Cwho) were strongly correlated (Cwho = 1.325 × Csmas; r = 0.95, P < 0.001). If we excluded subjects with Csmas values > 30 × 106 sperm/mL, the results were more similar (Cwho = 1.022 × Csmas; r = 0.81, P < 0.001). Percent motility obtained by SMAS (Msmas) and manual analysis on WHO guidelines (Mwho) were strongly correlated (Mwho = 1.214 × Msmas; r= 0.89, P < 0.001).ConclusionsThe data indicate that the results of SMAS and those of manual microscopic sperm analyses based on WHO guidelines are strongly correlated. SMAS is therefore a promising system for sperm analysis.

[1]  E. Bostofte,et al.  Fertility prognosis for infertile men: Results of follow‐up study of semen analysis in infertile men from two different populations evaluated by the Cox regression model , 1991, Fertility and sterility.

[2]  J P Bonde,et al.  Computer-assisted semen analysis parameters as predictors for fertility of men from the general population. The Danish First Pregnancy Planner Study Team. , 2000, Human reproduction.

[3]  E. Nieschlag,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of computer-assisted sperm motion analysis. , 1998, Human reproduction.

[4]  R. P. Oates,et al.  Computer-aided semen analysis variables as predictors of male fertility potential. , 1994, Archives of andrology.

[5]  R Eliasson,et al.  Laboratory manual for the examination of human semen and semen-cervical mucus interaction. , 1980 .

[6]  B. A. Keel.  How reliable are results from the semen analysis? , 2004, Fertility and sterility.

[7]  P. Jouannet,et al.  Male factors and the likelihood of pregnancy in infertile couples. I. Study of sperm characteristics. , 1988, International journal of andrology.

[8]  Tina Kold Jensen,et al.  Relation between semen quality and fertility: a population-based study of 430 first-pregnancy planners , 1998, The Lancet.

[9]  F. Comhaire.  Consensus workshop on advanced diagnostic andrology techniques. , 1997, Human reproduction.

[10]  N. Keiding,et al.  Semen analysis performed by different laboratory teams: an intervariation study. , 1997, International journal of andrology.

[11]  D W Blackhurst,et al.  Manual versus computer-automated semen analyses. Part II. Determination of the working range of a computer-automated semen analyzer. , 1996, Fertility and sterility.

[12]  W Holt,et al.  Reproducibility of computer-aided semen analysis: comparison of five different systems used in a practical workshop. , 1994, Fertility and sterility.

[13]  Guidelines on the application of CASA technology in the analysis of spermatozoa. ESHRE Andrology Special Interest Group. European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. , 1998, Human reproduction.

[14]  I C Macleod,et al.  The predictive value of computer-assisted semen analysis in the context of a donor insemination programme. , 1995, Human reproduction.

[15]  I D Cooke,et al.  Prognostic significance of computerized motility analysis for in vivo fertility. , 1993, Fertility and sterility.

[16]  E. Nieschlag,et al.  A technique for standardization and quality control of subjective sperm motility assessments in semen analysis. , 1997, Fertility and sterility.

[17]  D. Armant,et al.  The influence of chamber characteristics on the reliability of sperm concentration and movement measurements obtained by manual and videomicrographic analysis. , 1990, Fertility and sterility.

[18]  D. Blackhurst,et al.  Manual versus computer-automated semen analyses. Part I. Comparison of counting chambers. , 1996, Fertility and sterility.

[19]  A. Agarwal,et al.  Optimal dose and duration of exposure to artificial stimulants in cryopreserved human spermatozoa. , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[20]  B. A. Keel,et al.  Lack of standardization in performance of the semen analysis among laboratories in the United States. , 2001, Fertility and sterility.