Manual vs. computer-assisted sperm analysis: can CASA replace manual assessment of human semen in clinical practice?
Manual vs. computer-assisted sperm analysis: can CASA replace manual assessment of human semen in clinical practice?
复制标题
手动与计算机辅助精子分析：CASA 能否在临床实践中取代人类精液的手动评估？
作者：
Joanna Talarczyk;Anna Berger;Grażyna Taszarek;Jan Hauke;L. Pawelczyk;P. Jędrzejczak
目标
本研究的目的是检查计算机辅助精子分析（CASA）系统与参考手册方法的质量，以及计算机辅助精液评估的标准化。
材料和方法
本研究于2015年1月至6月在波兰波兹纳瓦拉医科大学不孕症和生殖内分泌学系的男科实验室进行。研究组由230名男性组成，他们在我们中心首次提供精子样本，作为不孕症调查的一部分。对样本进行浓度、运动性和形态学的手动和计算机辅助评估。共对184份样本进行了两次检查：根据2010年WHO建议进行手动检查，以及使用制造商提供的程序设置进行CASA检查。此外，46个样本进行了两次手动分析和两次计算机辅助分析。p < 0.05的p值被认为具有统计学显著性。
结果
除非前向运动力外，所有研究的精子参数之间均存在统计学显著差异，CASA和手动测量。在对同一样本进行两次每种方法的所有分析的患者组中，我们发现同一探针的两次评估之间没有显著差异，手动分析的样本和CASA分析的样本都没有显著差异，尽管CASA组的标准差更高。
结论
我们的研究结果表明，计算机辅助精子分析需要进一步改进，在临床实践中更广泛的应用。
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 set-tings 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.