Advertisement

Comparison between the hypoosmotic swelling test and morphology evaluation using strict criteria in predicting in vitro fertilization (IVF)

  • M. E. Enginsu
  • J. C. M. Dumoulin
  • M. H. E. C. Pieters
  • M. Bergers
  • J. L. H. Evers
  • J. P. M. Geraedts
Male-Factor Infertility

Background

The role of male factor with respect to sperm morphology, progressive motility, and density is studied under in vitro conditions.

Methods

The semen samples of 67 males participating in an in vitro fertilization program were evaluated by the conventional WHO criteria of spermatogram, by morphology evaluation using strict criteria (MEUSC), and by the hypoosmotic swelling test (HOST). All sperm tests were performed in the original semen sample as delivered on the day of IVF, before further sperm treatment. The correlations between these parameters and the fertilization outcome were evaluated and their predictive values were calculated.

Results

When the patients were divided into two groups, namely, fertile (fertilization rate per oocyte >0%) and infertile (fertilization rate per oocyte = 0%), only mean sperm density and morphology were significantly different between the groups (P <0.05). The correlation with fertilization rate in vitro was in favor of MEUSC.

Conclusions

Our results show that the HOST is inferior to MEUSC and conventional WHO sperm analysis in predicting fertilization in vitro.

Key words

sperm hypoosmotic swelling test morphology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jeyendran RS, Van der Ven HH, Perez-Pelaez M, Crabo BG, Zaneveld JD: Development of an assay to assess the functional integrity of the human sperm membrane and its relationship to other semen characteristics. J Reprod Fert 1984;70:219–228Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van der Ven HH, Jeyendran RS, Al-Hasani S, Perez-Pelaez M, Diedrich K, Zaneveld JD: Correlation between human sperm swelling in hypoosmotic medium (hypoosmotic swelling test) and in vitro fertilization. J Androl 1986;7:190–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Daya S, Gunby J, Kohut J: Semen predictors of in vitro fertilization and embryo cleavage. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:1284–1289PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Riedel HH, Hübner F, Ensslen SC, Bienek KW, Grillo M: Minimal andrological requirements for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1989; 4(Suppl):73–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shanis BS, Check JH, Bollendorf A: Interpretation and misinterpretation of semen parameters. Arch Androl 1989;23:213–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Check JH, Nowroozi K, Wu CH, Bollendorf A: Correlation of semen analysis and hypoosmotic swelling test with subsequent pregnancies. Arch Androl 1988;20:257–260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Check JH, Epsyein R, Nowroozi K, Shanis BS, Wu CH, Bollendorf A: The hypoosmotic swelling test as a useful adjunct to the semen analysis to predict fertility potential. Fertil Steril 1989;52:159–161PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mordel N, Mor-Yosef S, Margalioth E, Samueloff ASA, Schenker JG: The human sperm hypoosmotic swelling test: Its practical application and suggestion for improvement. Int J Fert 1989;5:355–358Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coetzee K, Kruger TF, Menkveld R, Lombard CJ, Swanson RJ: Hypoosmotic swelling test in the prediction of male infertility. Arch Androl 1989;23:131–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barratt CLR, Osborn JC, Harrison PE, Monks N, Dunphy BC, Lenton EA, Cooke ID: The hypo-osmotic swelling test and the sperm mucus penetration test in determining fertilization of the human oocyte. Hum Reprod 1989;4:430–434PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sjoblom P, Coccia E: On the diagnostic value of the hypoosmotic swelling test in an in vitro fertilization (IVF) program. J Vitro Fert Embryo Transfer 1989;6:41–43Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chan SYW, Edgar JF, Chan MMC, Tsoi W, Wang C, Tang LCG, Tang GWK, Ho PC: The relationship between the human sperm hypoosmotic swelling test, routine semen analysis, and the human sperm zona-free hamster ovum penetration assay. Fertil Steril 1985;44:668–672PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chan SYW, Wang C, Ng M, So WWK, Ho PC: Multivariate discriminant analysis of the relationship between the hypoosmotic swelling test and in-vitro fertilizing capacity of human sperm. Int J Androl 1988;11:369–378PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Avery S, Bolton VN, Mason BA: An evaluation of the hypoosmotic swelling test as a predictor of fertilizing capacity in vitro. Int J Androl 1990;13:93–99Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spittaler PJ, Tyler JPP: Further evaluation of a simple test for determining the integrity of spermatozoal membranes. Clin Reprod Fertil 1985;30:187–196Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu DY, Plessis YPD, Nayudu PL, Johnston WIH, Baker HWG: The use of in vitro fertilization to evaluate putative tests of human sperm function. Fertil Steril 1988;49:272–277PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chan SYW, Wang C, Chan STH, Ho PC: Differential evaluation of human sperm hypoosmotic swelling test and its relationship with the outcome of in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1990;5:84–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kruger TF, Menkveld R, Stander FSH, Lomberd CJ, Van der Merwe JP, Van Zyl JA, Smith K: Sperm morphological features as a prognostic factor in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1986;46:1118–1123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Menkveld R, Stander FSH, Kotze TJW, Kruger TF, Van Zyl JA: The evaluation of morphological characteristics of human spermatozoa according to stricter criteria. Hum Reprod 1990;5:586–592PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Enginsu ME, Dumoulin JCM, Pieters MHEC, Bras M, Evers JLH, Geraedts JPM: Evaluation of human sperm morphology using strict criteria after Diff-Quik staining: Correlation of morphology with fertilization in vitro. Hum Reprod 1991;6:854–858PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Quinn P, Warnes GM, Kerin JF, Kirby C: Culture factors in relation to the success of human in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1984;41:202–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mahadevan M, Baker G: Assessment and preparation of semen for in vitro fertilization.In Clinical in Vitro Fertilization, C Wood, A Trounson (ed). Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1984, pp 83–97Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dumoulin JCM, Evers JLH, Offermans JPM, Bras M, Pieters MHEC, Geraedts JPM: Human in vitro fertilization using spermatozoa capacitated in hyperosmotic media. Gynecol Obstet Inv 1990;30:165–168Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    WHO: Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interactions, 2nd ed. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp 9–11Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kruger TF, Acosta AA, Simmons KF, Swanson JR, Matta JF, Oehniger S: Predictive value of abnormal sperm morphology in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1988;49:112–117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Metz C: Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 1978;8:283–298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fleis JL: Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. Toronto, John Wiley & Sons, 1981, p 56Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Collins JA: Diagnostic assessment of the infertile male partner. Curr Problems Obstet Gynecol Infertil 1987;10:175–224Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Calderon G, Veiga A, Torello MJ, Vidal E, Martinez F, Barri PN: Do Percoll gradients improve sperm morphology. Hum Reprod 1991;6(Suppl):39Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. E. Enginsu
    • 1
  • J. C. M. Dumoulin
    • 2
  • M. H. E. C. Pieters
    • 1
  • M. Bergers
    • 2
  • J. L. H. Evers
    • 2
  • J. P. M. Geraedts
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Molecular Cell Biology and GeneticsAcademisch Ziekenhuis Maastricht and University of LimburgMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics & GynaecologyAcademisch Ziekenhuis Maastricht and University of LimburgMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations