OBJECTIVETo investigate the influence of the depth of the sperm counting chamber on sperm motility.

METHODSWe measured the depths of sperm counting chambers using the Filmetrics F20 Spectral Reflectance Thin-Film Measurement System. Then, according to the WHO5 manual, we analyzed 36 semen samples for the percentages of progressively motile sperm (PR) and non-progressively motile sperm (NP) and sperm motility (PR + NP) with the Ruiqi CFT-9201 computer-aided sperm analysis system, and compared the results of analysis.

RESULTSThe depths of the 4 sperm counting chambers were 9.8, 12.7, 15.7 and 19.9 microm, respectively, and the obtained PR were (44.00 +/- 11.63), (41.96 +/- 12.62), (40.86 +/- 11.71) and (37.78 +/- 11.38)%, NP (13.54 +/- 3.01), (14.13 +/- 2.94), (14.91 +/- 3.02) and (16.53 +/- 2.77)%, and sperm motility (57.53 +/- 11.06), (56.08 +/- 11.97), (55.78 +/- 11.55) and (54.31 +/- 12.11)% from the 4 chambers, respectively. The depth of the sperm counting chamber was correlated negatively with PR (r = -0.993, P < 0.05) and sperm motility (r = -0.978, P < 0.05), but positively with NP (r = 0.989, P < 0.05). There were statistically significant differences between the 9.8 microm and 19.9 microm deep chambers in PR and NP (P < 0.05) though not in sperm motility among the 4 chambers of different depths.

CONCLUSIONThe impact of the depth of the sperm counting chamber on sperm motility should not be ignored, for the deviation of the results from the chambers of different depths may lead clinicians to incorrect diagnosis and consequently inappropriate therapeutic approaches. Different reference ranges of sperm motility need to be normalized in correspondence to the depths of sperm counting chambers.

Humans ; Male ; Sperm Count ; instrumentation ; Sperm Motility

Humans ; Male ; Sperm Count/instrumentation* ; Spermatozoa/cytology*

OBJECTIVESemen evaluation is the most important laboratory test for assessing male fertility. However, lack of strict quality control (QC) for semen analyses in hospital andrology laboratories makes it difficult and meaningless to compare semen data between different laboratories. This paper reports a comparative study on the accuracy of the Hemacytometer (Qiujing Inc., Shanghai, China), Makler (Sefi-Medical Instrument, Haifa, Israel), and Cell-VU (Millennium Sciences Inc., New York, USA) chambers for sperm counting.

METHODSBoth low [(18 +/- 2.5) x 10(6)/ml] and high [(35 +/- 5) x 10(6)/ml] pre-calibrated standard latex bead solutions (Hamilton Thorne Biosciences, USA) were used as the quality control solution to perform counts on the three different counting chambers. Bead counts for the three different chambers were compared, and variability within the chambers determined for standard solutions at low and high concentrations of latex beads, respectively.

RESULTSMean bead concentrations for the Cell-VU, Hemacytometer and Makler chambers were (37.63 +/- 4.89), (42.74 +/- 4.98) and (53.52 +/- 6.67) x 10(6)/ml respectively for a standard solution containing (35 +/- 5) x 10(6) beads/ml, and (18.22 +/- 1.77), (20.48 +/- 1.56), (24.97 +/- 4.75) x 10(6)/ml respectively for a standard solution containing (18 +/- 2.5) x 10(6) beads/ml. Mean bead concentrations for the Cell-VU chamber were consistently similar and close to the standard pre-calibrated bead solutions, while those for both the Hemacytometer and the Makler chambers were significantly overestimated (P < 0.001). The average coefficients of variation for the Cell-VU chamber were 7.51% for a higher concentration of the standard solution containing (36 +/- 5) x 10(6) beads/ml and 1.22% for a lower concentration of the standard solution containing (18 +/- 2.5) x 10(6) beads/ml, while the mean variation rates of the Hemacytometer and Makler chambers were 22.11% and 13.78% for a standard solution containing (36 +/- 5) x 10(6) beads/ml, and 52.91% and 38.72% for a standard solution containing (18 +/- 2.5) x 10(6) beads/ ml, respectively.

CONCLUSIONSemen analysis is one of the most important tests for male fertility evaluation, but the data obtained from commercially available counting chambers may differ markedly in accuracy and reliability. Results from this comparative study demonstrated that the Cell-VU chamber exhibits significantly more accurate and less variable results than those of the Hemacytometer and Makler chambers. To ensure the best possible evaluations and accurate diagnoses, we therefore recommend that Cell-VU be used as the standard counting chamber for routine semen analyses in andrology laboratories.

Blood Cell Count ; instrumentation ; Humans ; Male ; Quality Control ; Sperm Count ; instrumentation ; standards

OBJECTIVETo compare 3 common sperm counting chambers by the computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) system and evaluate their precision in analyzing sperm density and motility.

METHODSWe used latex bead solution at (20 +/- 5) x 10(6)/ml as analogue semen samples and analyzed the samples with Makler, Leja and Microcell counting chambers, 30 times with each chamber. And the average (x +/- s) and the coefficient of variation of sperm density were calculated by the CASA system. Meanwhile 54 semen samples collected from the outpatients analyzed with the 3 sperm counting chambers by the CASA system for the rates of forward movement and motility of the sperm.

RESULTSThe averages of sperm density obtained with Makler, Leja and Microcell chambers were (25.90 +/- 3.97) x 10(6)/ml, (18.74 +/- 1.62) x 10(6)/ml and (20.35 +/- 2.55) x 10(6)/ml, the coefficients of variation were 15.31%, 8.64% and 12.54%, the rates of sperm forward movement were (46.54 +/- 17.09)%, (30.65 +/- 14.88)% and (30.49 +/- 13.21)%, and the rates of sperm motility were (59.75 +/- 16.12)%, (46.76 +/- 14.11)%, (43.11 +/- 14.02)% respectively. There were significant differences in average sperm density among the 3 groups (P < 0.05). The rates of sperm forward movement and motility obtained with the Makler chamber were significantly higher than those achieved with the Leja chamber and Microcell chamber (P < 0.05), but there were no significant differences between the latter two (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONThe rates of sperm density obtained with the 3 sperm counting chambers differed significantly. In the analysis of sperm motility, a higher rate can be achieved with the coverslip-pressed chamber than the capillary-drawn chamber.

Evaluation Studies as Topic ; Humans ; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted ; instrumentation ; methods ; Male ; Sperm Count ; instrumentation ; methods ; Sperm Motility

Semen analysis is a basic test to evaluate male reproductive function. In recent years, urgent needs for the standardization of semen analysis have been emphasized among andrologists worldwide. This review discusses the standardization and quality control (QC) for the analysis of sperm quality parameters, including sperm concentration, motility and morphology. The key to sperm concentration analysis is the standardization of sperm-counting chamber, thus Cell-VU chamber may be the first choice. The analysis of sperm motility and morphology is too subjective to be reliable. Therefore, the computer-aided semen analysis (CASA) system may be the final selection. QC of semen analysis mainly lies in the selection of QC materials and the administration of external QC and internal QC. Meanwhile, the charts and arithmetic methods should be established to monitor QC of semen analysis.
Humans ; Male ; Quality Control ; Reference Standards ; Semen ; cytology ; Sperm Count ; instrumentation ; standards ; statistics & numerical data ; Sperm Motility ; Spermatozoa ; cytology ; physiology