Manual versus computer-automated semen analyses .1. Comparison of counting chambers

Objective: To determine the accuracy and precision of counting chambers analyzed manually and with a computer-automated semen analyzer (CASA; Hamilton-Thorne Research, Beverly, MA). Design: Prospective study using comparative measurements of sperm concentration, motility and concentration of latex beads with three types of counting chambers: hemacytometers, 12 and 20 MicroCell (Conception Technologies, Inc., La Jolla, CA) Chambers, and Makler (Sefi-Medical Instruments, Haifa, Israel) Chambers. Setting: A hospital-based Andrology laboratory. Patients: Male partners of couples undergoing infertility evaluation. Main Outcome Measures: Experiment I: measurements of sperm concentration were evaluated within hemacytometers; Experiment II: measurements of sperm concentration in the 35 to 50 x 10(6)/mL range and sperm motility were determined using counting chambers; Experiment III: accuracy of counting chambers was determined using a known concentration of beads. Results: Experiment I: differences were demonstrated within two of eight hemacytometers (side 1 versus side 2); however, no significant effect of hemacytometer on variation in sperm concentration measurements was observed. Experiment II: CASA-analyzed 20 MicroCell Chambers demonstrated the best precision for sperm concentration (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.93) and motility (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.88). Experiment III: 20 MicroCell Chambers most accurately determined known bead concentration (35 +/- 5 x 10(6)/mL) whether analyzed on CASA (34.9 x 10(6)/mL) or manually (35.2 x 10(6)/mL). Conclusions: 20 MicroCell Chambers proved to be accurate and precise for determining concentration and motility of semen specimens whether analyzed manually or with CASA.