3种精子计数池在计算机辅助精液分析系统中的质量评价

目的:应用计算机辅助精液分析(CASA)系统对3种常用精子计数池进行比较,评价其在精子密度及活力分析方面的差异。方法:用浓度为(20±5)×106/ml乳胶珠溶液模拟精液样本,以Makler计数池、Leja计数池、Microcell计数池3种精子计数池作为精液分析工具,每组测定30次,以CASA系统对其密度进行分析并统计均值(x±s)和变异系数(CV);同时收集54例门诊患者精液标本用3种精子计数池分别进行活力分析,计算各组计数池前向运动精子百分率及活动精子百分率。结果:Makler计数池、Leja计数池、Microcell计数池等3种精子计数池的密度均值和变异系数分别为(25.90±3.97)、(18.74±1.62)、(20.35±2.55)×106/ml和15.31%、8.64%、12.54%。3种精子计数池密度均值间均存在明显的差异(P<0.05);Makler计数池、Leja计数池、Microcell计数池3种精子计数池的前向运动精子百分率和活动精子百分率分别为(46.54±17.09)%、(30.65±14.88)%、(30.49±13.21)%和(59.75±16.12)%、(46.76±14.11)%、(43.11±14.02)%。Makler计数池的分析结果均明显高于Leja计数池、Microcell计数池(P<0.05),而Leja计数池与Microcell计数池比较则无明显差异(P>0.05)。结论:不同类型的精子计数池得到的密度结果会存在明显的差异,在进行精子活力分析时,Makler计数池获得的结果会较Leja计数池与Microcell计数池的结果偏高。

Quality Evaluation of 3 Sperm Counting Chambers by Computer-Assisted Sperm Analysis System

Objective： To compare 3 common sperm counting chambers by the computer-assisted sperm analysis （CASA） system and evaluate their precision in analyzing sperm density and motility. Methods： We used latex bead solution at （20 ± 5）×10^6/ml as analogue semen samples and analyzed the samples with Makler, Leja and Microcell counting chambers, 30 times with each chamber. And the average （ ^-x ± s ） and the coefficient of variation of sperm density were calculated by the CASA system. Meanwhile 54 semen samples collected from the outpatients analyzed with the 3 sperm counting chambers by the CASA system for the rates of forward movement and motility of the sperm. Results： The averages of sperm density obtained with Makler, Leja and Microcell chambers were （25.90 ± 3.97）×10^6/ml, （18.74 ± 1.62 ）×10^6/ml and （20.35 ± 2.55 ）×10^6/ml, the coefficients of variation were 15.31%, 8.64% and 12.54%, the rates of sperm forward movement were （46.54±17.09 ） %, （30.65± 14. 88 ） % and （30.49 ± 13.21 ） %, and the rates of sperm motility were （59.75 ±16.12） %, （46.76 ± 14.11 ） %, （43.11 ± 14.02） % respectively. There were significant differences in average sperm density among the 3 groups （ P 〈 0.05 ）. The rates of sperm forward movement and motility obtained with the Makler chamber were significantly higher than those achieved with the Leja chamber and Microcell chamber （ P 〈 0.05 ） , but there were no significant differences between the latter two （ P 〉 0.05 ）. Conlcusion ： The rates of sperm density obtained with the 3 sperm counting chambers differed significantly. In the analysis of sperm motility, a higher rate can be achieved with the coverslippressed chamber than the capillary-drawn chamber.