Usefulness of sperm quality analyzer-V (SQA-V) for the assessment of sperm quality in infertile men

Validation of LensHooke® X1 PRO and Computer-Assisted Semen Analyzer Compared with Laboratory-Based Manual Semen Analysis

Purpose

To compare two automated semen quality analysis systems (LensHooke® X1 PRO [X1 PRO]) and IVOS CASA) for accuracy, precision and agreement with laboratory-based manual semen analysis (MSA).

Materials and Methods

Semen samples (n=31) were obtained from normozoospermic healthy male volunteers and infertile men with a minimum abstinence period between 2–3 days. After complete liquefaction, 101 seminal aliquots were prepared and tested according to WHO 5th Edition (2010) guidelines. The results obtained by X1 PRO and IVOS CASA were compared with that of MSA. Additionally, 10 samples were used to evaluate the intra- and inter-rater agreement for X1 PRO and MSA.

Results

The semen parameters (sperm concentration, total, and progressive motility) showed strong correlation and agreement for both automated semen analyzers and MSA (Spearman's rank correlation ≥0.92, p<0.0001). X1 PRO and IVOS CASA were able to differentiate samples with abnormal concentration with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100%. Furthermore, the PPV for X1 PRO (86.5%) was higher than that for IVOS CASA (71.7%) in differentiating samples with abnormal motility. The X1 PRO device showed a high PPV (97.7%) in identifying normal sperm forms compared to MSA. Semen parameters evaluated showed a high inter-rater (kappa >0.91) and intra-rater (kappa >0.92) agreement for X1 PRO compared with MSA.

Conclusions

Both automated semen analyzers demonstrated a high level of concordance and their performance was comparable with MSA analysis. Furthermore, high-levels of inter-and intra-rater reliability for semen analysis indicate that the new X1 PRO can be used in a clinical laboratory to offer accurate and quick test results.

Comparison of two automated sperm analyzers using 2 different detection methods versus manual semen assessment

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.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, these results show that both types of automated systems can be implemented in andrology laboratory for routine sperm analysis.

Dietary patterns are positively associated with semen quality

OBJECTIVE

To study association of semen quality with a priori whole dietary pattern indexes, which reflect real-world dietary practices and the numerous combinations by which foods are consumed: Healthy Eating Index (HEI), Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), alternate Mediterranean Diet score (aMED), and Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI).

DESIGN

A cross-sectional single-center study.

SETTING

Hospital fertility center and university.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 280 men attending fertility center from 2012 to 2015.

INTERVENTION(S)

Food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and semen and sperm analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Food consumption with the use of FFQ and HEI, AHEI, aMED, DASH nutritional individual scoring indexes. Semen parameters, including semen volume, sperm concentration, motility, total count, and morphology.

RESULT(S)

Comparing the highest and lowest quartiles of the nutritional indexes, men in the highest quartiles of HEI, AHEI, aMed, and DASH indexes had significantly higher adjusted means of sperm concentration (by 10%, 45%, and 24% for HEI, AHEI, and DASH, respectively), normal sperm morphology (by 21% and 8% for AHEI and DASH, respectively), total sperm count (by 29% for AHEI), and sperm motility (by 6% and 11% for aMed and HEI, respectively).

CONCLUSION(S)

Adherence to any of the four dietary indexes is associated with better overall sperm quality, with AHEI best associated. Following our novel findings, we recommend using AHEI as a clinical and practical tool for public whole nutritional recommendation for semen quality.

New method for sperm evaluation by 3-dimensional laser scanning microscopy in different laboratory animal species

Sperm analysis is one of the end points in reproductive toxicology studies. Different methods for quantitative sperm analysis have been described. For qualitative morphological sperm analysis, either such techniques or smears of sperm and histological sperm staging are in use. Any of these methods provides morphological results on a light microscopy level. Laser scanning microscopy is a technique using a focused laser for scanning an object. The Olympus 3D Laser Scanning Microscope LEXT OLS4000 with optional possibilities of differential interference contrast provides a microscopic method for visualizing microasperities, which are far beyond the resolving power of a typical light or laser microscope. This technique was applied to sperm of mice, rats, rabbits, and cynomolgus monkeys at magnifications up to ×17 090. The obtained images are comparable to those of a scanning electron microscope under relatively low-power magnifications. Measurements on sperm parameters were taken by an integrated image analysis software tool. Abnormalities were easily detectable.

Double-blind prospective study comparing two automated sperm analyzers versus manual semen assessment

PURPOSE

Despite controversy regarding its clinical value, male fertility investigation mainly relies on semen analysis. Even though reference guidelines are available, manual sperm analysis still suffers from analytical variability, thus questioning the interest of automated sperm analysis systems. The aim of this study is to compared automated computerized semen analysis systems (SQA-V GOLD and CASA CEROS) to the conventional manual method in terms of accuracy and precision.

METHODS

We included 250 men in this double-blind prospective study. The SQA-V GOLD (Medical Electronic Systems) and CEROS, CASA system (Hamilton Thorne) were compared to the standard manual assessment based on the WHO 5th Edition. The main outcome measures were sperm concentration, total sperm number, total motility, progressive motility, non-progressive motility, morphology, motile sperm concentration (MSC) and progressively motile sperm concentration (PMSC) with the three methods.

RESULTS

Statistical analysis of the test results from the automated systems and the manual method demonstrated no significant differences for most of the semen parameters. The Spearman coefficients of rank correlation (rho) for CASA and the SQA-V GOLD automated systems vs. the manual method were: Sperm concentration (0.95 and 0.95), total sperm number (0.95 and 0.95), MSC (0.94 and 0.96) and PMSC (0.94 and 0.93) correspondingly. Concerning sperm morphology, both automated systems demonstrated high specificity (Sp) and negative predictive values (NPV), despite significantly different medians (CASA: 83.7 % for Sp and 95.2 % for NPV, SQA-V: 97.9 % for Sp and 92.5 %). The highest precision (lowest 95 % confidence interval for duplicate tests) for all semen variables was found in the SQA-V GOLD.

CONCLUSIONS

The advantages of using automated semen analysers are: Standardization, speed (lower turnaround time), precision, reduced potential for human error, automated data recording and less need for highly skilled professionals to run the systems. The disadvantages of using automated systems are: notably the problem with testing some atypical samples and the inability to perform an assessment of morphology abnormalities. Based on the results of this study, the SQA-V Gold demonstrated better agreement vs. the manual method. In conclusion, automated semen analyzers can be used for routine semen analysis providing rapid clinically acceptable results with higher precision, and positively impacting laboratory standardization.

Automation is the key to standardized semen analysis using the automated SQA-V sperm quality analyzer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of the automated semen quality analyzer system for assessing sperm quality.

DESIGN

Double-blind prospective study.

SETTING

Tertiary care hospital.

PATIENT(S)

Fifty healthy men donated semen samples.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Precision, accuracy and agreement between automated and manual semen analysis methods was assessed for sperm concentration, motility, morphology, and known concentrations of latex bead quality control media.

RESULT(S)

A good agreement was seen between the results of sperm concentration reported by the SQA-V automated analyzer (Spermalite/SQA-V; Medical Electronic Systems Ltd, Caesarea Industrial Park, Israel) and those obtained manually. A similar linearity was seen when the SQA-V results were compared with the manual data and also when the manual results of individual operators were compared with each other. The automated assessment of morphology showed high sensitivity (89.9%) for identifying percent normal morphology, and the precision of the SQA-V was considerably higher when compared with the manual method. The interoperator variability for manual assessment was significant. The automated analysis was quick compared with the manual method.

CONCLUSION(S)

The SQA-V can be used interchangeably with manual semen analysis methods for examining sperm concentration and motility. The automated SQA-V analyzer is more precise and shows the ability to accurately classify normal versus abnormal sperm morphology.