Slide preparation and staining procedures for reliable results using computerized morphology.

The purpose of this study was to standardize slide preparation and staining procedures to improve the efficiency and effectivity of the IVOS system on normal sperm morphology readings with regard to the strict criteria. Semen samples from patients attending the Reproductive Biology Unit, Tygerberg Hospital, were used. In experiment 1, five different Diff-Quik staining procedures, including the standard procedure, were evaluated on each of 22 patients and the effect of slide preparation within 1 h or more than 5 h after collection and the effect of immediate fixation versus fixation after 24 h were observed. In experiment 2, the manual evaluation time per slide (n = 20) by two technicians was compared with the time taken by computer. In experiment 1 the median % normal for the 5 different staining procedures was 6, 6.5, 9.5, 8.5, and 5.5%. No significant difference was found between the different staining procedures (p = .60, nonparametric Friedman test). In experiment 2 the mean time for manual assessment by two technicians was 3 min:6 s and 3 min:53 s per slide as compared to 4 min:39 s by computer. For experiment 1, slides can be prepared immediately or after 5 h. Fixation time also does not interfere with the computer's ability to identify normal forms. For experiment 2, the IVOS system is competitive regarding assessment time. Standardization of optimum staining procedures is important to ensure repeatability and comparability. Therefore, slides should be prepared immediately after liquefaction and fixed immediately after air drying.

Sperm morphology: assessing the agreement between the manual method (strict criteria) and the sperm morphology analyzer IVOS.

OBJECTIVES: To correlate the percentage normal morphology reported by different observers and a computerized method (IVOS; Hamilton-Thorne Research, Beverly, MA) on a slide-by-slide basis using strict criteria: [1] Experienced observer (T.F.K.) versus experienced observer (R.M.), [2] experienced observer (T.F.K.) versus sperm morphology analyzer (IVOS), and [3] repeatability of normal and abnormal cells (IVOS). DESIGN SETTING, PATIENTS: Slides from 30 different patients from the Tygerberg IVF program were selected randomly. Microscopic fields and sperm cells were chosen randomly and percent normal morphology was recorded (objectives 1 and 2). The same slides were used and a cell-by-cell repeatability was done as outlined (objective 3). RESULTS: Experiment 1 (objective 1): there was no significant bias between T.F.K. and R.M. The limits of agreement were 8.6% and -7.3%. The SDs were not significantly different (P = 0.1283). The Spearman correlation coefficient between readers was 0.83. Experiment 2 (objective 2): the same findings were reported but the limits of agreement were 12.1% and -15.5%. The Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.85. The limits of agreement was tighter below 20% normal forms (+8.4 and -6.6). Experiment 3 (objective 3) (repeatability): 255 cells were analyzed three times in succession. Estimating pairwise agreement, the kappa statistic for the pairs are 0.85, 0.80, and 0.85, respectively, which compares favorably with the second canonical moment of 0.8329 (kappa = 0.83). DISCUSSION: The computer's ability to classify normal morphology per slide is promising. Below 20% normal forms, the limit of agreement is tight. Because of the 6% higher reading compared with the manual method, different thresholds possibly will be developed to identify subfertile from fertile patients. The computer gives excellent repeatability of normal and abnormal cells. Based on results obtained, this system can be of clinical value both in IVF units and andrology laboratories but more clinical data is required in this field.