Talarczyk-Desole Joanna, Berger Anna, Taszarek-Hauke Grażyna, Hauke Jan, Pawelczyk Leszek, Jedrzejczak Piotr
Division of Infertility and Reproductive Endocrinology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poland.
Ginekol Pol. 2017;88(2):56-60. doi: 10.5603/GP.a2017.0012.
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.
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.
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.
Our results suggest that computer-assisted sperm analysis requires further improvement for a wider application in clinical practice.
本研究旨在对比计算机辅助精子分析（CASA）系统与参考手工方法的质量，并对计算机辅助精液评估进行标准化。
本研究于2015年1月至6月在波兰波兹南医科大学不孕不育与生殖内分泌科男科实验室进行。研究组由230名男性组成，他们作为不孕不育调查的一部分，首次在我们中心提供精液样本。对样本进行了浓度、活力和形态的手工及计算机辅助评估。总共184个样本进行了两次检查：一次是根据2010年世界卫生组织的建议进行手工检查，另一次是使用制造商提供的程序设置通过CASA进行检查。此外，46个样本进行了两次手工分析和两次计算机辅助分析。p值<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
在用CASA和手工测量的所有研究精子参数中，除了非进行性活力外，均发现有统计学显著差异。在对同一样本每种方法都进行两次分析的患者组中，我们发现同一样本的两种评估之间没有显著差异，无论是手工分析的样本还是CASA分析的样本，尽管CASA组的标准差更高。
我们的结果表明，计算机辅助精子分析需要进一步改进，以便在临床实践中更广泛地应用。
