SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Experimental Biomedical Research / 2020 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 4

Comparison of fully automatic analyzer and manual measurement methods in sperm analysis and clinical affect

ÖZGÜR MEHMET YİS
Pages
224–230
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Manual verification of samples can be recommended since the samples diagnosed with azoospermia provided different results with a manual method in our study.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: To investigate the clinical effect of the computer-aided sperm analyzers (CASA) by comparing the low sperm concentration semen samples evaluated by CASA with the sperm count performed on Makler Counting Chamber (MC) as a manual method.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Semen samples were taken from184 patients coming to our clinic were evaluated with CASA (SQA-V Gold sperm analyzer, MES Medical Electronic Systems Ltd.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Manual verification of samples can be recommended since the samples diagnosed with azoospermia provided different results with a manual method in our study.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Aim: To investigate the clinical effect of the computer-aided sperm analyzers (CASA) by comparing the low sperm concentration semen samples evaluated by CASA with the sperm count performed on Makler Counting Chamber (MC) as a manual method. Methods: Semen samples were taken from184 patients coming to our clinic were evaluated with CASA (SQA-V Gold sperm analyzer, MES Medical Electronic Systems Ltd. Caesarea Industrial Park, IL 3088900, UK) and MC (Makler Counting Chamber, Sefi-Medical Instruments ltd., Haifa, Israel). Samples were divided into two groups as samples containing sperms and samples without sperms, according to the CASA results. Results: There was a very high correlation between the two measurement methods (rho = 0.982) and regression analysis formula was y=1.042x-0.104. No sperm was detected in CASA in any of the samples identified to have no sperm in MC. However, when patients who were identified with no sperm in their CASA measurements (n=51) were analyzed with MC, 29 patient samples (56.9%) had an average of 0.23±0.35 x106 /mL sperm. Conclusion: CASA’s used in routine semen analysis provide a great convenience in measuring sperm count, compared to manual methods and provide highly correlated results. Manual verification of samples can be recommended since the samples diagnosed with azoospermia provided different results with a manual method in our study.

🔖

Cite This Article

YİS, Ö. M. (2020). Comparison of fully automatic analyzer and manual measurement methods in sperm analysis and clinical affect. Experimental Biomedical Research, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 4, 224–230. https://ajindex.com/articles/159494

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR, Boerma T, et al. National, Regional, and Global Trends in Infertility Prevalence Since 1990: A Systematic Analysis of 277 Health Surveys. PLOS Med. 2012;9(12):e1001356
  2. Cunningham J. Infertility: A primer for primary care providers. J Am Acad Physician Assist. 2017;30(9):19–25
  3. Dinçer M, Kucukdurmaz F, Salabas E, et al. Comparison of Two Different Methods Used for Semen Evaluation: Analysis of Semen Samples from 1,055 Men. Urol Int. 2017;98(2):215–21
  4. Pfeifer S, Butts S, Dumesic D, et al. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile male: A committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(3):e18–25
  5. Jungwirth A, Giwercman A, Tournaye H, et al. European association of urology guidelines on male infertility: The 2012 update. Eur Urol. 2012;62(2):324–32
  6. Quadri R, Rosa C, Fonzo D. Analysis of seminal fluid: modern aspects of an old examination. Minerva Endocrinol. 1991;16(3):101–106
  7. Wang C, Swerdloff RS. Limitations of semen analysis as a test of male fertility and anticipated needs from newer tests. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(6):1502–7
  8. Dascanio JJ. In: Dascanio JJ, McCue PM (editors). Computer-Assisted Sperm Analysis. Equine Reproductive Procedures. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2014. p 368–372
  9. Hu YA, Lu JC, Shao Y, et al. Comparison of the semen analysis results obtained from two branded computer-aided sperm analysis systems. Andrologia. 2013;45(5):315–18
  10. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the Examination and processing of human semen- 5th ed. [cited 2020 May 20]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10 665/44261/9789241547789_eng.pdf;jsessio nid=72962BC172CDFDE295544F96B9C8 C3EF?sequence=1. 2010
  11. Wosnitzer MS, Goldstein M. Obstructive azoospermia. Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41(1):83–95
  12. Gnoth C, Godehardt E, Frank-Herrmann P, et al. Definition and prevalence of subfertility and infertility. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(5):1144–147
  13. Du Plessis SS, Gokul S, Agarwal A. Semen hyperviscosity: causes, consequences, and cures. Front Biosci (Elite Ed). 2013;5:224– 31
  14. World Health Organization. WHO laboratory manual for the Examination and processing of human semen. Fifth Edition. Geneva: WHO Press; 2010 pp271
  15. Agarwal A, Henkel R, Huang C-C, et al. Automation of human semen analysis using a novel artificial intelligence optical microscopic technology. Andrologia. 2019;51(11):e13440
  16. Köse M, Karakoc Sokmensuer L, Demir A, et al. Manual versus computer-aut