open access

Vol 88, No 2 (2017)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2017-02-28
Get Citation

Manual vs. computer-assisted sperm analysis: can CASA replace manual assessment of human semen in clinical practice?

Joanna Talarczyk-Desole, Anna Berger, Grażyna Taszarek-Hauke, Jan Hauke, Leszek Pawelczyk, Piotr Jedrzejczak
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2017.0012
·
Pubmed: 28326513
·
Ginekol Pol 2017;88(2):56-60.

open access

Vol 88, No 2 (2017)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2017-02-28

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the study was to check the quality of computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) system in comparison to the reference manual method as well as standardization of the computer-assisted semen assessment.

Material and methods: The study was conducted between January and June 2015 at the Andrology Laboratory of the Division of Infertility and Reproductive Endocrinology, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Poland. The study group consisted of 230 men who gave sperm samples for the first time in our center as part of an infertility investigation. The samples underwent manual and computer-assisted assessment of concentration, motility and morphology. A total of 184 samples were examined twice: manually, according to the 2010 WHO recommendations, and with CASA, using the program set­tings provided by the manufacturer. Additionally, 46 samples underwent two manual analyses and two computer-assisted analyses. The p-value of p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results: Statistically significant differences were found between all of the investigated sperm parameters, except for non-progressive motility, measured with CASA and manually. In the group of patients where all analyses with each method were performed twice on the same sample we found no significant differences between both assessments of the same probe, neither in the samples analyzed manually nor with CASA, although standard deviation was higher in the CASA group.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that computer-assisted sperm analysis requires further improvement for a wider application in clinical practice.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the study was to check the quality of computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA) system in comparison to the reference manual method as well as standardization of the computer-assisted semen assessment.

Material and methods: The study was conducted between January and June 2015 at the Andrology Laboratory of the Division of Infertility and Reproductive Endocrinology, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Poland. The study group consisted of 230 men who gave sperm samples for the first time in our center as part of an infertility investigation. The samples underwent manual and computer-assisted assessment of concentration, motility and morphology. A total of 184 samples were examined twice: manually, according to the 2010 WHO recommendations, and with CASA, using the program set­tings provided by the manufacturer. Additionally, 46 samples underwent two manual analyses and two computer-assisted analyses. The p-value of p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results: Statistically significant differences were found between all of the investigated sperm parameters, except for non-progressive motility, measured with CASA and manually. In the group of patients where all analyses with each method were performed twice on the same sample we found no significant differences between both assessments of the same probe, neither in the samples analyzed manually nor with CASA, although standard deviation was higher in the CASA group.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that computer-assisted sperm analysis requires further improvement for a wider application in clinical practice.

Get Citation

Keywords

Computer-assisted sperm analysis, CASA, sperm parameters, infertility

About this article
Title

Manual vs. computer-assisted sperm analysis: can CASA replace manual assessment of human semen in clinical practice?

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 88, No 2 (2017)

Pages

56-60

Published online

2017-02-28

DOI

10.5603/GP.a2017.0012

Pubmed

28326513

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2017;88(2):56-60.

Keywords

Computer-assisted sperm analysis
CASA
sperm parameters
infertility

Authors

Joanna Talarczyk-Desole
Anna Berger
Grażyna Taszarek-Hauke
Jan Hauke
Leszek Pawelczyk
Piotr Jedrzejczak

References (14)
  1. Kuczyński W, Kurzawa R, Oszukowski P, et al. Polish Gynecological Society and Polish Society for Reproductive Medicine. [Polish Gynecological Society and Polish Society for Reproductive Medicine recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility]. Ginekol Pol. 2012; 83(2): 149–154.
  2. WHO. World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ; 2010.
  3. Bailey E, Fenning N, Chamberlain S, et al. Validation of sperm counting methods using limits of agreement. J Androl. 2007; 28(3): 364–373.
  4. Mortimer ST, van der Horst G, Mortimer D. The future of computer-aided sperm analysis. Asian J Androl. 2015; 17(4): 545–553.
  5. Walczak-Jedrzejowska R, Marchlewska K, Oszukowska E, et al. Semen analysis standardization: is there any problem in Polish laboratories? Asian J Androl. 2013; 15(5): 616–621.
  6. Jedrzejczak P, Talarczyk J, Taszarek-Hauke G, et al. [External quality assessment of semen analysis in Poland]. Ginekol Pol. 2012; 83(11): 835–840.
  7. Kaskar K, Franken DR, van der Horst G, et al. The effect of pentoxifylline on sperm movement characteristics and zona pellucida binding potential of teratozoospermic men. Hum Reprod. 1994; 9(3): 477–481.
  8. Guidelines on the application of CASA technology in the analysis of spermatozoa. ESHRE Andrology Special Interest Group. European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. Hum Reprod. 1998; 13(1): 142–145.
  9. Systems M-AD. SCA - Sperm Class Analyzer v. 4.1. - polish version: Microptic - Automatic Diagnostic Systems. ; 2014.
  10. Holt W, Watson P, Curry M, et al. Reproducibility of computer-aided semen analysis: comparison of five different systems used in a practical workshop. Fertil Steril. 1994; 62(6): 1277–1282.
  11. Lammers J, Splingart C, Barrière P, et al. Double-blind prospective study comparing two automated sperm analyzers versus manual semen assessment. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014; 31(1): 35–43.
  12. Jedrzejczak P, Taszarek-Hauke G, Hauke J, et al. Prediction of spontaneous conception based on semen parameters. Int J Androl. 2008; 31(5): 499–507.
  13. Cooper TG, Yeung CH. Computer-aided evaluation of assessment of "grade a" spermatozoa by experienced technicians. Fertil Steril. 2006; 85(1): 220–224.
  14. Keel BA, Quinn P, Schmidt CF, et al. Results of the American Association of Bioanalysts national proficiency testing programme in andrology. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15(3): 680–686.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl