Objective: Sperm morphology classification was analyzed by the computer-assisted semen analysis equipped with the Morphologizer II (Cryo Resources Ltd., New York, NY) was compared with the traditional manual method.
Design, setting, patients: Fifty stained semen smears from men attending the infertility clinic of a tertiary referral institution were studied.
Main outcome measures: Sperm head morphology was classified by the two methods into the following forms: normal, small oval, big oval, taper, and amorphous.
Results: Overall, the classifications of mean percent normal, small, and amorphous head forms were similar in the two methods. However, the differences between paired values obtained by the two methods were highly variable (range from -20% to +20%). The large differences between the methods were related to the large coefficients of variations present when classifying abnormal sperm morphology even by the same experienced technician. Only the percent normal spermatozoa could be classified by both methods with acceptable precision. In contrast, the variations in the morphometric analyses between the different semen smears were very small.
Conclusions: There was no advantage of the morphologizer over the manual method in sperm morphology classification. The clinical value of morphometric parameters of spermatozoa has to be defined.