Jackson Kirkman-Brown1, Lars Björndahl. 1. Centre for Human Reproductive Science, Birmingham Women's Health Care Trust, Division of Reproductive and Child Health, The Medical School, The University of Birmingham, Birmingham, West Midlands, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether disposable plastic counting chambers effectively could replace nondisposable, time-consuming, and potentially dangerous glass hemocytometers. DESIGN: Evaluation of equipment in modern laboratory andrology. Comparison of results obtained with plastic chambers with results obtained with "gold-standard" glass hemocytometer counts. SETTING: Diagnostic laboratory for andrology. PATIENT(S): Twenty-one patients undergoing investigation for infertility problems. INTERVENTION(S): No interventions with patients; sperm in diluted semen samples were used when patients had allowed the use for research and training. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Sperm concentration, difference from results obtained with standard equipment. RESULT(S): In the first three experimental series, with use of standard routine phase-contrast microscopy, significantly lower count results were obtained consistently from the plastic chambers than from standard chambers. In the fourth series, with use of specialized equipment, equivalent results were obtained but with a considerably greater time commitment because of difficulties in distinguishing sperm adjacent to the gridlines in the plastic chambers. CONCLUSION(S): The plastic disposable chamber type was not suitable for routine semen analysis because results are variable depending on the microscope used, and increased time is necessary to do the assessment accurately.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether disposable plastic counting chambers effectively could replace nondisposable, time-consuming, and potentially dangerous glass hemocytometers. DESIGN: Evaluation of equipment in modern laboratory andrology. Comparison of results obtained with plastic chambers with results obtained with "gold-standard" glass hemocytometer counts. SETTING: Diagnostic laboratory for andrology. PATIENT(S): Twenty-one patients undergoing investigation for infertility problems. INTERVENTION(S): No interventions with patients; sperm in diluted semen samples were used when patients had allowed the use for research and training. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Sperm concentration, difference from results obtained with standard equipment. RESULT(S): In the first three experimental series, with use of standard routine phase-contrast microscopy, significantly lower count results were obtained consistently from the plastic chambers than from standard chambers. In the fourth series, with use of specialized equipment, equivalent results were obtained but with a considerably greater time commitment because of difficulties in distinguishing sperm adjacent to the gridlines in the plastic chambers. CONCLUSION(S): The plastic disposable chamber type was not suitable for routine semen analysis because results are variable depending on the microscope used, and increased time is necessary to do the assessment accurately.