Comparison of two automated sperm analyzers using 2 different detection methods versus manual semen assessment - 02/02/21

Doi : 10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102084

Jenna Lammers ^a,^b,^{^{1
The authors consider that the first two authors should be regarded as joint First Authors.}}, Sana Chtourou ^a,^c,^{^{1
The authors consider that the first two authors should be regarded as joint First Authors.}}, Arnaud Reignier ^a,^b, Sophie Loubersac ^a,^b, Paul Barrière ^a,^b, Thomas Fréour ^a,^b,⁎
^a CHU Nantes, Nantes Université, Service de biologie et médecine de la reproduction, Nantes, France
^b Nantes Université, Inserm, Centre de Recherche en Transplantation et Immunologie, UMR 1064, ITUN, Nantes, France
^c Laboratoire de biologie de la reproduction et de cytogénétique, Hôpital Aziza Othmana, Tunis, Tunisia

^⁎Corresponding author at: Service de biologie et médecine de la reproduction, CHU Nantes, 38 boulevard Jean Monnet, 44093, Nantes, France.Service de biologie et médecine de la reproductionCHU Nantes38 boulevard Jean MonnetNantes44093France

Sous presse. Manuscrit accepté. Disponible en ligne depuis le Tuesday 02 February 2021
Cet article a été publié dans un numéro de la revue, cliquez ici pour y accéder

Abstract

Purpose

The exploration of male infertility is mainly based on semen analysis, but its evaluation might be affected by the operator's competence and subjectivity. This led to the development of automated semen analyzing systems. Despite continuous improvement, the precision and correlation of these automated systems with manual sperm assessment performed strictly according to WHO guidelines remains variable in the literature, and their role in daily practice is debated.

Methods

In this double blind prospective study, we compared the results provided by 2 automated systems based on different concepts (CASA and electro-optical signal) with manual sperm assessment. Sperm concentration, motility and morphology were performed simultaneously and independently by different operators, blinded to each other.

Results

A total of 102 unselected men attending the andrology department for routine sperm analysis were included in the study. We found no significant difference between each automated method and manual assessment for all sperm parameters, except for sperm morphology assessment where the electro-optical system gave higher results and performed slightly poorer than CASA. Correlation was moderate to high between manual assessment and each automated methods for all sperm parameters, with randomly distributed differences.