Comparison of two automated sperm analyzers using 2 different detection methods versus manual semen assessment.

J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod

CHU Nantes, Nantes Université, Service de biologie et médecine de la reproduction, Nantes, France; Nantes Université, Inserm, Centre de Recherche en Transplantation et Immunologie, UMR 1064, ITUN, Nantes, France. Electronic address:

Published: October 2021

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study investigates the effectiveness of two automated semen analysis systems compared to traditional manual sperm assessment, focusing on male infertility diagnosis.
  • Both automated systems showed no significant differences from manual assessments in most sperm parameters, except for sperm morphology, where one system performed slightly poorer than the other.
  • The findings support the use of these automated systems in andrology labs for routine sperm testing due to their moderate to high correlation with manual assessments.

Article Abstract

Purpose: The exploration of male infertility is mainly based on semen analysis, but its evaluation might be affected by the operator's competence and subjectivity. This led to the development of automated semen analyzing systems. Despite continuous improvement, the precision and correlation of these automated systems with manual sperm assessment performed strictly according to WHO guidelines remains variable in the literature, and their role in daily practice is debated.

Methods: In this double blind prospective study, we compared the results provided by 2 automated systems based on different concepts (CASA and electro-optical signal) with manual sperm assessment. Sperm concentration, motility and morphology were performed simultaneously and independently by different operators, blinded to each other.

Results: A total of 102 unselected men attending the andrology department for routine sperm analysis were included in the study. We found no significant difference between each automated method and manual assessment for all sperm parameters, except for sperm morphology assessment where the electro-optical system gave higher results and performed slightly poorer than CASA. Correlation was moderate to high between manual assessment and each automated methods for all sperm parameters, with randomly distributed differences.

Conclusions: Overall, these results show that both types of automated systems can be implemented in andrology laboratory for routine sperm analysis.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102084DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

automated systems
12
sperm
9
manual sperm
8
sperm assessment
8
assessment sperm
8
routine sperm
8
sperm analysis
8
manual assessment
8
sperm parameters
8
assessment
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!