| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Andrology Lab Corner |
From the Assisted Conception Unit, Birmingham Women's Hospital and Reproductive Biology and Genetics Group, School of Medicine, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
| Correspondence to: Professor Christopher Barratt, Assisted Conception Unit, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Metchley Park Road, Birmingham B15 2TG, United Kingdom (e-mail: c.l.barratt{at}bham.ac.uk). |
| Received for publication September 29, 2004; accepted for publication September 29, 2004. |
A large number of different techniques to estimate sperm concentration have been reported. In the mid-1990s a series of fixed-depth disposable slides were evaluated as rapid and effective pieces of equipment for the estimate of sperm concentration. Preliminary data from a number of studies suggested that, at least in the 20-µm-depth format, such chambers resulted in a noticeable underestimate of sperm concentration compared to the gold standard (improved Neubauer hemocytometer). Using this information, the World Health Organization stated that "such chambers, whilst convenient in that they can be used without dilution of the specimen, may lack the accuracy and precision of the haemocytometer technique" (World Health Organization, 1999). Further data—for example, from Tomlinson and colleagues—showed that 2 proprietary disposable slides (Microcell, Conception Technologies, San Diego, Calif; Leja, Leja Products, BV Nieuw-Vennep, The Netherlands) gave lower sperm concentrations compared to the hemocytometer method (Tomlinson et al, 2001). Consistent with these observations were reports from the American Association of Bioanalysts proficiency testing program (Keel et al, 2000) and the Study for the Future Families Research Group (Brazil et al, 2004a,b).
In two papers in the current issue, Douglas-Hamilton and colleagues (Douglas-Hamilton et al, 2005a,b) provide an advanced theoretical model to explain the lower results obtained using 20 µm fixed-depth disposable slides and provide experimental data verifying their predictions. In addition, the model explains why 100-µm-deep chambers (improved Neubauer hemocytometer) are not significantly influenced by the Segre-Silberberg effect and thus are not prone to the errors occurring in thin capillary-loaded slides.
The explanation provided by Douglas-Hamilton and colleagues (Douglas-Hamilton et al, 2005a,b) may allow "compensation factors" to be applied to sperm concentration data produced using thin capillary-loaded slides. However, the authors are correct in their conclusions that "these findings re-affirm the need to critically assess new technologies for accuracy, repeatability and precision."
In view of the above, the use of 20-µm thin capillary-loaded slides for the determination of sperm concentration is not compatible with the requirement for high-standard quality assurance in the andrology laboratory.
Footnotes
* Andrology Lab Corner welcomes the submission of unsolicited
manuscripts, requested reviews, and articles in a debate format. Manuscripts
will be reviewed and edited by the Section Editor. All submissions should be
sent to the Journal of Andrology Editorial Office. Letters to
the editor in response to articles as well as suggested topics for future
issues are encouraged. 
References
Björndahl L, Tomlinson MJ, Barratt CLR. Raising standards in
semen analysis: professional and personal responsibility. J
Androl. 2004; 25:862-863.
Brazil C, Swan SH, Drobnis EZ, Liu F, Wang C, Redmon JB, Overstreet
JW. Standardized methods for semen evaluation in a multicentre research study.
J Androl. 2004a; 25:635-644.
Brazil C, Swan SH, Tollner CR, Treece C, Drobnis EZ, Wang C, Redmon
JB, Overstreet JW. Quality control of laboratory methods for semen analysis in
a multicentre research study. J Androl. 2004b; 25:645-656.
Douglas-Hamilton DH, Smith NG, Kuster CE, Vermeiden JPW, Althouse
GC. Particle distribution in low volume capillary-loaded chambers.
J Androl. 2005a; 26:107-114.
Douglas-Hamilton DH, Smith NG, Kuster CE, Vermeiden JPW, Althouse
GC. Capillary-loaded particle fluid dynamics: effect on estimation of sperm
concentration. J Androl. 2005b; 26:115-122.
Keel BA. How reliable are results from the semen analysis? Fertil Steril. 2004; 82:41-44.[Medline]
Keel BA, Quinn P, Schmidt CF Jr, Serafy NT Jr, Serafy NT Sr,
Schalue TK. Results of the American Association of Bioanalysist National
proficiency testing programme in andrology. Hum
Reprod. 2000; 15:680-686.
Tomlinson MJ, Turner J, Powell G, Sakkas D. One-step disposable
chambers for sperm concentration and motility assessment: how do they compare
with the World Health Organisation's methods? Hum
Reprod. 2001; 16:121-124.
World Health Organization. WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction. 3rd ed. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1999 .
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  L. Lefievre, K. Bedu-Addo, S. J Conner, G. S M Machado-Oliveira, Y. Chen, J. C Kirkman-Brown, M. A Afnan, S. J Publicover, W C. L Ford, and C. L R Barratt Counting sperm does not add up any more: time for a new equation? Reproduction, April 1, 2007; 133(4): 675 - 684. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
