Journal of Andrology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zinaman, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Clegg, E. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zinaman, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Clegg, E. D.

Journal of Andrology, Vol 17, Issue 3 288-292, Copyright © 1996 by The American Society of Andrology

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Evaluation of computer-assisted semen analysis (CASA) with IDENT stain to determine sperm concentration

M. J. Zinaman, M. L. Uhler, E. Vertuno, S. G. Fisher and E. D. Clegg
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois 60153, USA.

This study was undertaken to compare a new fluorescent stain-based computer-assisted semen analysis (CASA) system (IDENT) for determining human sperm concentration to the manual hemacytometric method and to conventional CASA (CASA-CONV). Normal healthy semen donors as well as patients provided samples that were evaluated for sperm concentration with the CASA-IDENT method, the hemacytometer method, and CASA-CONV. Each field was examined visually to determine the sources of overcounting and undercounting for the two CASA methods. Four ranges of sperm concentration were examined: 0-10, > 10-30, > 30-100, and > 100 x 10(6)/ml. The main outcome measures were sperm concentration, debris counted as sperm, and missed sperm. Our results showed that significantly more debris was counted as sperm and more sperm were missed with CASA-CONV than CASA-IDENT. As the sperm density increased, so did the number of counting errors for the CASA-CONV system. The error rate was much greater using CASA-CONV (12.1 +/- 42.2%) than with CASA-IDENT (0.4 +/- 0.7%) when compared to hemacytometer counts (P = 0.068). We conclude that the CASA-IDENT method of sperm counting is highly accurate and less time-consuming when compared to the hemacytometer method. There are significant differences in the amount of debris counted as sperm and number of missed sperm between CASA-CONV and CASA-IDENT with varying sperm density. With both parameters, the counts are more accurate using the CASA-IDENT method.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J AndrolHome page
T. G. Cooper, B. Hellenkemper, J. Jonckheere, N. Callewaert, A. J. Grootenhuis, W. M. Kersemaekers, A. Leung, and C. Wang
Azoospermia: Virtual Reality or Possible to Quantify?
J Androl, July 1, 2006; 27(4): 483 - 490.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by The American Society of Andrology.