[Quality evaluation of three different sperm counting chambers]

Abstract

Objective: Semen evaluation is the most important laboratory test for assessing male fertility. However, lack of strict quality control (QC) for semen analyses in hospital andrology laboratories makes it difficult and meaningless to compare semen data between different laboratories. This paper reports a comparative study on the accuracy of the Hemacytometer (Qiujing Inc., Shanghai, China), Makler (Sefi-Medical Instrument, Haifa, Israel), and Cell-VU (Millennium Sciences Inc., New York, USA) chambers for sperm counting.

Methods: Both low [(18 +/- 2.5) x 10(6)/ml] and high [(35 +/- 5) x 10(6)/ml] pre-calibrated standard latex bead solutions (Hamilton Thorne Biosciences, USA) were used as the quality control solution to perform counts on the three different counting chambers. Bead counts for the three different chambers were compared, and variability within the chambers determined for standard solutions at low and high concentrations of latex beads, respectively.

Results: Mean bead concentrations for the Cell-VU, Hemacytometer and Makler chambers were (37.63 +/- 4.89), (42.74 +/- 4.98) and (53.52 +/- 6.67) x 10(6)/ml respectively for a standard solution containing (35 +/- 5) x 10(6) beads/ml, and (18.22 +/- 1.77), (20.48 +/- 1.56), (24.97 +/- 4.75) x 10(6)/ml respectively for a standard solution containing (18 +/- 2.5) x 10(6) beads/ml. Mean bead concentrations for the Cell-VU chamber were consistently similar and close to the standard pre-calibrated bead solutions, while those for both the Hemacytometer and the Makler chambers were significantly overestimated (P < 0.001). The average coefficients of variation for the Cell-VU chamber were 7.51% for a higher concentration of the standard solution containing (36 +/- 5) x 10(6) beads/ml and 1.22% for a lower concentration of the standard solution containing (18 +/- 2.5) x 10(6) beads/ml, while the mean variation rates of the Hemacytometer and Makler chambers were 22.11% and 13.78% for a standard solution containing (36 +/- 5) x 10(6) beads/ml, and 52.91% and 38.72% for a standard solution containing (18 +/- 2.5) x 10(6) beads/ ml, respectively.

Conclusion: Semen analysis is one of the most important tests for male fertility evaluation, but the data obtained from commercially available counting chambers may differ markedly in accuracy and reliability. Results from this comparative study demonstrated that the Cell-VU chamber exhibits significantly more accurate and less variable results than those of the Hemacytometer and Makler chambers. To ensure the best possible evaluations and accurate diagnoses, we therefore recommend that Cell-VU be used as the standard counting chamber for routine semen analyses in andrology laboratories.