Computer‐aided sperm analysis, the new key player in routine sperm assessment

Abstract

For sperm analysis, important inter-laboratory variations have been observed in manual analyses. In this study, a computer-aided sperm analysis (CASA) system was assessed versus manual technique, and specific software modifications were operated to fit the David's classification already used in the laboratory. Four parameters were studied (concentration, motility, vitality and morphology), and at least 30 semen samples from 30 different patients have been tested. Manual and automated analyses were compared using a least-squares regression line analysis, Student's t test, Bland-Altman plots and Passing-Bablok regressions. Repeatability was also assessed, and coefficients of variation (CV) were calculated. Both manual and automated methods gave similar results for sperm concentration (n = 150), motility (n = 30), vitality (n = 90) and morphology (n = 90). Repeatability always showed a decrease in the CV with automated analysis; for example in normal range of sperm values, CV for manual and CASA analyses were, respectively, 9.0% versus 4.4% for sperm concentration, 5.2% versus 4.1% for motility, 7.3% versus 4.2% for vitality and 11.4% versus 4.1% for morphology. All parameters were comparable between automated and manual analysis, and repeatability measures confirm the more reliable values of the SCA compared to those of manual analysis. K E Y W O R D Scomputer-aided sperm analysis, manual sperm analysis, sperm analysis

The validity and reliability of computer-aided semen analyzers in performing semen analysis: a systematic review

“…An agreement between both manual and SCA analysis was reported analyzing 30 semen samples (15). Particularly, authors reported a better repeatability when SCA was used for analyzing either astheno-or normozoospermic samples (15). No significant difference was reported also by Lammers et al (2014) when using both the SQA V-GOLD and CEROS systems and similarly by Agarwal et al when using the LensHooke X1 PRO (22).…”

“…A low correlation between both methods was observed when using SQA vision (r=0.36; P value not reported) (18). Contrary to the abovementioned results, Singh et al (25) reported a significant high correlation (r=0.77; P≤0.001) by using the SQA IIC-P for the semen evaluation of 201 infertile men, as (15). Finally, SCA analysis was associated with a lower variation in the results for either severely teratozoospermic or normozoospermic samples compared to manual semen analysis (15).…”

“…On the contrary, Schubert et al reported no significant difference in the results (n=150) when SCA system was used for analyzing either samples concentrated less than 1 million/mL or more than 80 million/mL (15). Also, results provided by SCA system showed higher repeatability in both oligo-and normozoospermic samples (15). Vernon et al and Tomlinson et al found no significant difference when using the SCA system and a novel CASA system using multi target-tracking algorithms to analyze the concentration of Accu-beads (16,17).…”

“…On the contrary, Schubert et al reported no significant difference in the results (n=150) when SCA system was used for analyzing either samples concentrated less than 1 million/mL or more than 80 million/mL (15). Also, results provided by SCA system showed higher repeatability in both oligo-and normozoospermic samples (15).…”

“…Seven articles compared results for progressive motility by analyzing samples manually or using SCA (15,18,24), LensHooke X1 PRO ( 22), SQA-Vision ( 16), SQA-V GOLD and CEROS (11), and an unnamed system (17). An agreement between both manual and SCA analysis was reported analyzing 30 semen samples (15). Particularly, authors reported a better repeatability when SCA was used for analyzing either astheno-or normozoospermic samples (15).…”