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

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.