Related Experiment Videos
One-step disposable chambers for sperm concentration and motility assessment: how do they compare with the World
M Tomlinson1, J Turner, G Powell
1Assisted Conception Unit, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham, UK. mathew.tomlinson@bham-womens.thenhs.com
Insights
Sperm concentration testing using
Area of Science:
- Reproductive biology
- Andrology
- Medical diagnostics
Background:
- The World Health Organization (WHO) has raised concerns regarding the accuracy of 'one-step' disposable chambers for sperm concentration assessment.
- Traditional haemocytometer methods are considered the gold standard but can be labor-intensive.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare sperm concentration and motility measurements obtained using the Neubauer haemocytometer with three 'one-step' methods.
- To evaluate the accuracy and precision of disposable chambers versus standard methods in semen analysis.
Main Methods:
- Sperm concentration was assessed using the Neubauer haemocytometer, Microcell slide, Leja slide, and a plain glass slide with coverslip.
- Motility assessments were also performed across the different chambers.
- Paired comparisons were conducted on 200 concentration measurements and 100 motility assessments.
Main Results:
- Significant discrepancies (P < 0.0001) were found between sperm concentration counts from the Neubauer haemocytometer and the 'one-step' chambers.
- Discrepancies were more pronounced in normozoospermic samples with good motility.
- No significant differences in progressive motility were observed between chambers.
Conclusions:
- 'One-step' chambers demonstrate considerable variability and lack the accuracy of the haemocytometer for sperm concentration.
- Inconsistent results may lead to variations in diagnostic semen analysis and patient treatment allocation.
- Further validation of 'one-step' methods is required to ensure reliable sperm concentration assessment.
Abstract:
The World Health Organization suggests that 'one-step' type disposable chambers lack the accuracy and precision of the haemocytometer method for assessing sperm concentration. The purpose of this particular study was to compare sperm concentration measurements and motility using the Neubauer((R)) haemocytometer with those obtained using three 'one-step' methods: the Microcell((R)) slide, Leja((R)) slide and a plain glass slide with a 22x22 mm coverslip. A total of 200 sperm concentration measurements and 100 motility assessments were performed on all chambers. Paired comparisons showed enormous discrepancies between the counts, particularly between the Neubauer((R)) and other chambers (P < 0.0001). This discrepancy was less pronounced in oligozoospermic samples, and samples with low (<30% progression) motility but more pronounced in normozoospermic samples and those with good motility (>50% progression). In addition, concentration assessments from a fresh undiluted and unfixed semen sample on the Microcell((R)) slide were found to be significantly lower than both fixed counts on the same slide (P = 0.011) and the initial laboratory reading on the Neubauer((R)) chamber (P = 0.009). No differences were observed in progressive motility between the different chambers and a plain glass slide. There appears to be little comparison between the haemocytometer and either re-useable or disposable one-step chambers. The unfortunate consequence of this is that diagnostic semen analysis and guidelines for allocation of patients to appropriate treatment groups will vary from centre to centre, depending on the method used and may, on occasion, be erroneous.