Comparison of Two Different Methods Used for Semen Evaluation: Analysis of Semen Samples from 1,055 Men

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether there is a difference between gravimetrically and volumetrically measured semen samples and to assess the impact of semen volume, density, and sperm count on the discrepancy between gravimetric and volumetric methods. This study was designed in an andrology laboratory setting and performed on semen samples of 1,055 men receiving infertility treatment. Semen volume was calculated by gravimetric and volumetric methods. The total sperm count, semen density and sperm viability were also examined according to recent version of World Health Organization manual. The median values for gravimetric and volumetric measurements were 3.44 g and 2.96 ml respectively. The numeric difference in semen volume between 2 methods was 0.48. The mean density of samples was 1.01 ± 0.46 g/ml (range 0.90-2.0 g/ml). The numeric difference between 2 methods gets higher as semen volume increases (p < 0.001). Gravimetric and volumetric semen volume measurements were strongly correlated for all samples and for each subgroup of semen volume, semen density and sperm count, with minimum correlation coefficient of 0.895 (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the gravimetric measurement provides higher results than volumetric one and numeric differences between 2 methods increase as semen volume increases. However, further studies are needed to offer the use of gravimetrical method, which was thought to minimize laboratory errors, particularly for a high amount of semen samples.

Comparison of fully automatic analyzer and manual measurement methods in sperm analysis and clinical affect

“…It can be defined as the condition of not being able to conceive despite regular unprotected intercourse for at least 12 consecutive months [1,2]. Male factor is suspected in approximately half of the cases [3]. The most common and precise diagnostic step in male infertility is semen analysis.…”

“…The diagnostic and prognostic effectiveness of semen analysis is correlated with strict compliance to the guidelines recommended by the World Health Organization. Neubauer slide (NS), Makler counting chamber (MC), spectrophotometric methods and fully automated (or computer-aided) sperm analyzers (CASA) can be used for sperm counting [3,6,7]. Spermatozoa motility, morphology and concentration can be analyzed simultaneously on modern CASA systems but such assessments are not as reliable as traditional methods (such as NS or MC) [8,9].…”