ABSTRACT
As demonstrated by some authors, the type of analyzing chamber can greatly influence the results of computer-assisted sperm analysis (CASA). This study aimed to compare three of the disposable chamber types currently available on the market and to determine whether the CASA output may be significantly different among them. The semen from five Fleckvieh bulls was analyzed by CASA using three different disposable chambers: Leja (20µm), MofA (20µm) and Minitube (20µm), at three different time points: immediately after filling the chamber, at 6min, and also at 12min after filling. Sperm concentration was also determined using the Nucleocounter® NC-100™ device and the hemocytometer as standard methods. The results showed higher values in terms of total and progressive sperm motility for MofA compared to the other two chambers immediately after filling (p<0.05), but higher values for Leja and Minitube after 6 and 12min (p<0.05). All three disposable chambers offered lower values for sperm concentration compared to standard methods (Leja: 68.4±4.9×106/mL; MofA: 80.8±9.6×106/mL; Minitube: 67.3±5.4×106/mL; Nucleocounter: 86.5×106/mL; Hemocytometer: 84.0×106/mL). We conclude that for rapid analyses the MofA chambers provide superior results when compared to the other types that we tested. However, when the analysis requires a longer duration, the Minitube type, and especially the Leja type provide a greater degree of confidence. Further, for determining sperm concentration we think that examiners would be more accurate using the Nucleocounter or the hemocytometer and should make use of CASA only when the other methods are not available.
