Background and Aim: Conventional manual sperm analysis still shows variations in structure, process and outcome although World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines present an appropriate method for sperm analysis. In the present study a new system for sperm analysis, Sperm Motility Analysis System (SMAS), was compared with manual semen analysis based on WHO guidelines. Materials and methods: Samples from 30 infertility patients and 21 healthy volunteers were subjected to manual microscopic analysis and SMAS analysis, simultaneously. We compared these two methods with respect to sperm concentration and percent motility. Results: Sperm concentrations obtained by SMAS (Csmas) and manual microscopic analyses on WHO guidelines (Cwho) were strongly correlated (Cwho = 1.325 × Csmas; r = 0.95, P < 0.001). If we excluded subjects with Csmas values >30 × 106 sperm/mL, the results were more similar (Cwho = 1.022 × Csmas; r = 0.81, P < 0.001). Percent motility obtained by SMAS (Msmas) and manual analysis on WHO guidelines (Mwho) were strongly correlated (Mwho = 1.214 × Msmas; r = 0.89, P < 0.001). Conclusions: The data indicate that the results of SMAS and those of manual microscopic sperm analyses based on WHO guidelines are strongly correlated. SMAS is therefore a promising system for sperm analysis. (Reprod Med Biol 2006; 5: 195-200).
Background and Aim: Conventional manual sperm analysis still shows variations in structure, process and outcome although World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines present an appropriate method for sperm analysis. In the present study a new system for sperm analysis, Sperm Motility Analysis System (SMAS), was compared with manual semen analysis based on WHO guidelines. Materials and methods: Samples from 30 infertilitypatients and 21 healthy volunteers were subjected to manual microscopic analysis and SMAS analysis, simultaneously. We compared these two methods with respect to sperm concentration and percent motility. Results: Sperm concentrations obtained by SMAS (Csmas) and manual microscopic analyses on WHO guidelines (Cwho) were strongly correlated (Cwho = 1.325 × Csmas; r = 0.95, P < 0.001). If we excluded subjects with Csmas values >30 × 106 sperm/mL, the results were more similar (Cwho = 1.022 × Csmas; r = 0.81, P < 0.001). Percent motility obtained by SMAS (Msmas) and manual analysis on WHO guidelines (Mwho) were strongly correlated (Mwho = 1.214 × Msmas; r = 0.89, P < 0.001). Conclusions: The data indicate that the results of SMAS and those of manual microscopic sperm analyses based on WHO guidelines are strongly correlated. SMAS is therefore a promising system for sperm analysis. (Reprod Med Biol 2006; 5: 195-200).
Authors: J P Bonde; E Ernst; T K Jensen; N H Hjollund; H Kolstad; T B Henriksen; T Scheike; A Giwercman; J Olsen; N E Skakkebaek Journal: Lancet Date: 1998-10-10 Impact factor: 79.321