AUTOMATED AND MANUAL SEMEN ANALYSIS: THE COMPARATIVE CHARACTERISTICS

Currently, spermogram parameters are routine criteria for assessing male fertility. There are two methods of semen analysis: traditional manual and automated. The concentration of spermatozoa of various motility categories is important in predicting physiological conception, as well as in choosing fertilization methods in assisted reproductive technology programs. The introduction of automatic semen analyzers has shown that their use can be considered as an alternative to the routine manual analysis method, which can contribute to laboratory standardization. Initially, these devices demonstrated difficulty in accurately indicating sperm concentration due to the presence of sperm aggregation and large amounts of cellular debris. In the present study, the main focus was on the analysis of sperm concentration by manual and automated methods. A total of 50 sperm samples were analyzed from patients participating in assisted reproductive technology programs. Manual analysis was performed in a Makler's chamber according to the standard method in 10 small squares. The motility of each spermatozoon was classified into categories. Automated analysis was carried out using the CASA sperm analyzer computer analysis system (MICROPTIC, Spain), which uses the principle of microscopic imaging and processing to detect motile and immobile spermatozoa through fast and consistent images. Statistical methods for independent variables were chosen to evaluate the obtained data. As part of the study, by the method of determining confidence intervals, a statistically significant difference was found between automated and standard or manual methods of analysis when evaluating spermatozoa with the highest speed of 0,025 mm/sec and rectilinear and translational movement, as well as with a lower speed, either aging or with broken morphology. Most likely, this is due to the objective difficulty of visual assessment of spermatozoa of such motility categories. The data obtained suggest that automated analysis has a higher degree of objectivity in assessing mobile biological objects, in particular male germ cells.

1. Potekhina ES, Mikhaylyuk EV, Nepomnyashchikh AS. Spermogramma kak instrument otsenki muzhskoy fertil'nosti. Nauchnoe obozrenie. Meditsinskie nauki. 2020;1:11-14. In Russian

2. Auger J et al. Intra- and inter-individual variability in human sperm concentration, motility and vitality assessment during a workshop involving ten laboratories. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:2360–2368

3. Cooper TG et al. World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:231–245. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmp048

4. Agarwal A, Sharma RK. Automation is the key to standardized semen analysis using the automated SQA-V sperm quality analyzer. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:156–162. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.05.083

5. Bioenvironmental Issues Affecting Men's Reproductive and Sexual Health. Eds: Suresh C. Sikka and Wayne J. G. Hellstrom.- London: Elsevier/Academic Press, 2018.- 596pp

6. Leont'eva OA, Vorob'eva OA. Sravnitel'nyy analiz morfologii spermatozoidov cheloveka. Russky meditsinsky sever. 1999;3. In Russian

7. Zhabin SG, Trechenkov EA, Artifeksov SB i dr. Sravnitel''naya otsenka urovnya dnk-fragmentatsii i drugikh pokazateley fertil''nosti eyakulyata. Problemy reproduktsii. 2015;21(4):121‑124. In Russian

8. Olefir JuV, Monakov DM. Klinicheskoe znachenie morfologii spermatozoidov v vybore metoda lecheniya muzhskogo besplodiya. Eksperimental'naya i klinicheskaya urologiya 2021;14(3):127-132. In Russian

9. Muzhskoe besplodie. Klinicheskie rekomendatsii. M.: Rossiyskoe obshchestvo urologov, 2021.- 25s. URL: http://disuria.ru/_ld/10/1013_kr21N46mz.pdf. In Russian

10. Bozhedomov VA, Lipatova NA, Sporish EA I dr. Rol’ strukturnykh narusheny khromatina i DNK spermatozoidov v razvitii besplodiya. Andrologiya i genital'naya khirurgiya. 2012;13(3):82-92. In Russian

11. Matthew S Wosnitzer, Goldstein M. Obstructive azoospermia. Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41(1):83-95

12. Sperm retrieval for obstructive azoospermia. Practice Committee of the American Society for reproductive. Medicine. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(5)Suppl 1:115-120

13. Gamidov SI, Popova AJu, Gasanov NG i dr. Rol' metodov khirurgicheskogo polucheniya spermatozoidov u patsientov s azoospermiey v programmakh vspomogatel'nykh reproduktivnykh tekhnologiy (obzor literatury). Andrologiya i genital'naya khirurgiya. 2018;19(3):27-34. In Russian

14. Gasanov NG, Gamidov SI, Shatylko TV i dr. Reproduktivny potentsial spermatozoidov, poluchennykh khirurgicheskim putyom u patsientov s azoospermiey. Eksperimental'naya i klinicheskaya urologiya. 2019;(3):126-132. In Russian. DOI: 10.29188/2222-8543-2019-11-3-126-132

15. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. Fifth ed. WHO, 2010.- 271 pp

16. Odintsov AA, Kuchkov IN, Cherkashina IV, Potemina TE. Ispol'zovanie pentoksifillina v protsedure intratsitoplazmaticheskoy in'ektsii spermiya (ICSI). Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine. 2010;(3):53-55. In Russian

17. Mangoli V, Mangoli R, Dandekar S, et al. Selection of viable spermatozoa from testicular biopsies: a comparative study between pentoxifylline and hypoosmotic swelling test. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(2):631-634. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.10.007

18. Nordhoff V. How to select immotile but viable spermatozoa on the day of intracytoplasmic injection? An embryologist’s view. Andrology. 2015;(2):156-162. DOI: 10.1111/andr.286

19. The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of ART Laboratory performance indicators, ESHRE Special Interest Group of embryology and Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35(5):494-510. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.06.015

20.