Differences of Spermatozoa Concentration Analysis Between Manual and Automatic Methods
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The examination of sperm concentration in the laboratory is the calculation of the number and motility using a microscope or using a device. There are still some clinicians who doubt the accuracy of the sperm count results using a semen analyzer rather than using the manual method. This study aims is to determine the differences of the sperm concentration examination between the manual method and the automatic method. Subjects in this study were patients who carried out semen analysis tests at the Clinical Pathology Laboratory of RSIA "Restu Ibu" Sragen from June to August 2020. The object of this research is the examination of sperm concentration, using a manual method using a hemocytometer and an automatic method using the LensHooke ™ SQA X1 Pro. The results of statistical tests using the Mann Whitney methods show that the significance value (p) was 0.960, which means that there was no difference in the results of the sperm concentration examination between the manual method and the automatic method. Result of this research shows that there is no weakness or significant difference if compared between manual and automatic methods.
Downloads
Article Details
Copyright (c) 2021 Emma Ismawatie
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Ring JD, Lwin AA, Köhler TS. Current medical management of endocrine-related male infertility. Asian J Androl. 2016;18(3):357–63.
WHO. Laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5 ed. WHO Library. 2010.
Amann RP, Waberski D. Computer-assisted sperm analysis (casa): Capabilities and potential developments. Theriogenology.2014 ; 81(1)5-17.
Dohle G, Arver S, Bettocchi C, Jones T., Kliesch S, Punab M. Guidelines on male hypogonadism. Eur Assoc Urol. 2011;1–24.
Agarwal A, Henkel R, Huang CC, Lee MS. Automation of human semen analysis using a novel artificial intelligence optical microscopic technology. Andrologia.2019; 2. 1-9.
Bonraybo. Lenshooke XI PRO Semen Quality Analyzer. 2019; 1-4. http://bonraybio.com/en/product.php?act=view&id=8.
Maggavi RR, Pujari SA, Vijaykumar CN. Motility analysis with morphology: Study related to human sperm. Procedia Computer Science. 2019 ; 152. 179-85.
Narulita P. The Effectiveness of lenshooke tm semen quality analyzer x1 pro for human semen analysis. Fac Med Univ Airlangga, Surabaya. 2020;1(1).
Chaurasia A, Sinha A, Upahdyay P. Comparison of semen analysis by manual and automated method. J Pathol Nepal. 2016;6(12):990–3.
Dearing C, Jayasena C, Lindsay K. Can the cperm class analyser (sca) casa-Mot system for human sperm motility analysis reduce imprecision and operator subjectivity and improve semen analysis?. Human Fertility. 2014; 17(1): 37–44.
Baig A, Shoebuddin M, Ahmed M. Comparison of manual sperm analysis with computer-assisted sperm analysis: A comparative cross-sectional study.National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology. 2019 ; 9.1-3.
Syauqy A. Evaluasi kromatin sperma sebagai indikator kualitas sperma. [Evaluation of sperm chromatin as an indicator of sperm quality]. Jambi Medical Journal Jurnal Kedokteran dan Kesehatan. 2014 ; 2. 1-6.
Talarczyk J, Berger A, Taszarek-hauke G. Manual vs computer-assisted sperm analysis: can casa replace manual assessment of human semen in clinical practice. Ginekologia Poly.2017; 88(2);56-60.
Tomlinson MJ, Naeem A. CASA in the medical laboratory: CASA in diagnostic andrology and assisted conception. CSIRO Publishing. 2018 ; 30 (6)850-59.
Sugiyono. Metode penelitian kuantitatif kualitatif dan R&D. [Qualitative research methods and R&D]. Graha Ilmu. edisi1. Bandung, Alfabeta. 2019. 286 - 292p.
Singh S, Sharma S, Jain M, Chauhan R. Importance of papanicolaou staining for sperm morphologic analysis: Comparison with an automated sperm quality analyzer. American Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2011;136 (2) : 247-51.
Shahnaz, Ayesha. Infertility: A review on causes, treatment and management. womens health & gynecol. 2016;2(6): 35-40.
Park YS, Park S, Ko DS, Park DW, Seo JT, Yang KM. Observation of sperm-head vacuoles and sperm morphology under light microscope. Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine, 2014;41(3), 132–136. https://doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2014.41.3.132
Ariagno JI, Mendeluk GR, Furlan MJ, Sardi M, Chenlo P, Curi SM, Pugliese MN, Repetto HE, Cohen M. Computer-aided sperm analysis: a useful tool to evaluate patient's response to varicocelectomy. Asian journal of andrology, 2017;19(4), 449–452. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.173441
Franken DR, Oehninger S. Semen analysis and sperm function testing. Asian journal of andrology, 2012;14(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/aja.2011.58
Kevin, KL, Raymond HWL, Ernest HYN, Pak CH, William SBY. Semen analysis – what a clinician should know. Continuing medical education. 2012. Avalaible online at https://www.mims-cpd.co.id/
