Related Experiment Videos
Manual versus computer-automated semen analyses. Part I. Comparison of counting chambers
J E Johnson1, W R Boone, D W Blackhurst
1Greenville Hospital System, South Carolina 29605, USA.
Objective:
To determine the accuracy and precision of counting chambers analyzed manually and with a computer-automated semen analyzer (CASA; Hamilton-Thorne Research, Beverly, MA).
Design:
Prospective study using comparative measurements of sperm concentration, motility and concentration of latex beads with three types of counting chambers: hemacytometers, 12 and 20 MicroCell (Conception Technologies, Inc., La Jolla, CA) Chambers, and Makler (Sefi-Medical Instruments, Haifa, Israel) Chambers.
Setting:
A hospital-based Andrology laboratory.
Patients:
Male partners of couples undergoing infertility evaluation.
Main Outcome Measures:
Experiment I: measurements of sperm concentration were evaluated within hemacytometers; Experiment II: measurements of sperm concentration in the 35 to 50 x 10(6)/mL range and sperm motility were determined using a known concentration of beads.
Results:
Experiment I: differences were demonstrated within two of eight hemacytometers (side 1 versus side 2): however, no significant effect of hemacytometer on variation in sperm concentration measurements was observed. Experiment II: CASA-analyzed 20 MicroCell Chambers demonstrated the best precision for sperm concentration (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.93) and motility (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.88). Experiment III: 20 MicroCell Chambers most accurately determined known bead concentration (35 +/- 5 x 10(6)/mL) whether analyzed on CASA (34.9 x 10(6)/mL) or manually (35.2 x 10(6)/mL).
Conclusions:
20 MicroCell Chambers proved to be accurate and precise for determining concentration and motility of semen specimens whether analyzed manually or with CASA.