부산대학교 도서관

Summary:Background:Sperm analysis represents a primary approach in the evaluation of male infertility, however it does not give full diagnostic information on sperm functionality and viability and does not predict its fertilizing capability, especially in pathological conditions. The aim of this study was to compare two sperm viability tests: Eosin test and Hypoosmotic swelling test (HOS). Both tests are used to determine live sperm, however Eosin is a routine test associated to spermiogram, while HOS is used as a supplementary investigation on sperm viability.Methods:A total of 100 semen samples were collected for the study and firstly analyzed to determine semen basic parameters. Subsequently eosin and HOS tests were performed to determine sperm viability. Sperm viability is expressed as the percentage of live sperm, determined by using staining techniques. The Eosin test uses eosin solution. The eosin staining is excluded by live cells which are not stained. The Hypoosmotic swelling test uses incubation in an hypoosmotic balanced salt solution. In the Hypoosmotic swelling test the tail of only live spermatozoa is swelling in an hypoosmotic solution. Finally samples were examined under a light microscope. WHO has defined normal ranges as more than 60% of sperm cells alive.Results o]Tests have shown concordance of 65 samples out of 100 (65%) between the results of two tests of vitality. In fact, those samples have shown similar results below or above the reference values; similar values of percentage of viability were also obtained. The remaining 35 samples have shown, on the contrary, inconsistent results. Using the method HOS these samples showed percentages of vitality significantly lower than the reference values, while in the Eosin test the same samples showed that the percentage of viability was not altered. However, the statistical analysis performed on the totality of the data has showed a poor correlation between the two sets of values obtained by the two tests. Conclusions. In order to enhance the diagnostic efficiency of semen analysis, due to the diagnostic limitation of spermiogram, additional tests, like Eosin test and HOS, have been developed to evaluate other semen parameters. This study has showed comparable diagnostic accuracy for both Eosin ad HOS viability tests, as confirmed by the fairly high percentage of concordant results. However, analyzing the overall data, it has been demonstrated the importance of the parallel use of both viability tests. The two viability tests, despite using different parameters, can evaluate different aspects of semen biological activity. As a result, the current study has established the importance of using Eosin test in combination with HOS to improve the diagnostic accuracy of sperm viability examination: