IVOS Ⅱ versus Sperm Class Analyzer in the results of semen analysis.
- Author:
Hui-Xian ZHONG
1
;
Guan-Gui LI
1
;
Feng XIONG
1
;
Pei-Lin CHEN
1
;
Cai-Yun WAN
1
;
Zhi-Hong YAO
1
;
Zhuang-Hong MA
1
;
Yong ZENG
1
;
Qing SUN
1
Author Information
1. Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Reproductive Immunology for Peri-implantation, Center of Reproduction, Shenzhen Zhongshan Urology Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518045, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
consistency;
progressively motile sperm;
repeatability;
sperm concentration;
sperm motility;
sperm quality analyzer
- From:National Journal of Andrology
2019;25(2):124-128
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the results obtained from the computer-aided sperm analysis (CASA) systems of the two fully-automated commercial sperm quality analyzers, Hamilton-Thorn IVOS Ⅱ (IVOS Ⅱ) and Spanish Sperm Class Analyzer (SCA).
METHODS:A total of 99 semen samples were collected in the Center of Reproduction of Shenzhen Zhongshan Urology Hospital from September 2018 to October 2018 and, according to the sperm concentration, divided into groups A (<15 ×10⁶/ml), B (15－50 ×10⁶/ml) and C (>50 ×10⁶/ml). IVOS Ⅱ, SCA and manual microscopy were used for the examination of each sample, followed by comparison of the sperm concentration, sperm motility and percentage of progressively motile sperm (PMS) obtained from IVOS Ⅱ and SCA.
RESULTS:The sperm concentrations derived from IVOS Ⅱ and SCA were significantly higher than that from manual microscopy in group A (［10.24 ± 4.60］ and ［10.20 ± 5.11］ vs ［8.45 ± 4.15］ ×10⁶/ml, P < 0.05), but showed no statistically significant difference in group B (［30.95 ± 11.84］ and ［31.81 ± 12.90］ vs ［29.14 ± 10.65］ ×10⁶/ml, P > 0.05) or C (［102.14 ± 45.97］ and ［109.48 ± 46.32］ vs ［104.74 ± 41.87］ ×10⁶/ml, P > 0.05). Significant differences were not observed between IVOS Ⅱ and SCA in the percentage of PMS (［24.21 ± 14.62］% vs ［23.92 ± 15.42］%, P > 0.05) or sperm motility (［37.48 ± 19.34］% vs ［37.69 ± 16.61］%, P > 0.05) in group B, nor in group C (PMS: ［30.80 ± 12.06］% vs ［32.98 ± 16.10］%, P > 0.05; sperm motility: ［44.50 ± 15.62］% vs ［47.26 ± 17.46］%, P > 0.05). Both the percentage of PMS and sperm motility obtained from IVOS Ⅱ were remarkably lower than those derived from SCA in group A (PMS: ［18.54 ± 12.96］% vs ［22.90 ± 12.88］%, P < 0.05; sperm motility: ［26.97 ± 14.05］% vs ［34.90 ± 15.18］%, P < 0.05). IVOS Ⅱ and SCA both showed a high repeatability (CV <15%), and the former exhibited an even higher one than the latter, in detection of sperm concentration, sperm motility and the percentage of PMS.
CONCLUSIONS:IVOS Ⅱ and SCA both had a good consistency in the results of sperm concentration, motility and progressive motility, but showed a poor comparability with low-concentration semen samples.
