Table 2.
Spermatogenesis evaluation. Spermatogenesis evaluation between different groups of the present study by assessment of histopathological factors (testicular weight, seminiferous tubule diameter, and seminiferous epithelium thickness Johnsen score) and sperm parameters (mean epididymis sperm count, percentage of sperm motility, and percentage of viable sperm)
| Groups | Control ± SD | Sham ± SD | Torsion ± SD | Transplantation ± SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Testicular weight | 0. 09 ± 0.05 | 0. 08 ± 0.05 | 0. 07 ± 0. 01 | 0. 08 ± 0. 01 |
| Seminiferous diameter | 199. 98 ± 2. 48 | 198. 32 ± 1. 98 | 135. 64 ± 11. 41a | 165. 44 ± 2. 36ab |
| Epithelium thickness | 55. 52 ± 2. 02 | 55. 86 ± 3. 94 | 12. 46 ± 2. 23a | 47. 22 ± 0. 90ab |
| Johnson grade | 9. 2 ± 0. 51 | 9. 16 ± 0. 52 | 2. 90 ± 0. 37a | 8. 03 ± 0. 43ab |
| Sperm count (×106) | 5. 72 ± 0. 48 | 5. 64 ± 0. 41 | 0. 10 ± 0. 00a | 2. 92 ± 0. 77ab |
| Sperm morphology | 74. 60 ± 1. 14 | 69. 20 ± 5. 17 | 0. 60 ± 1. 34 a | 78. 40 ± 2. 88b |
| Sperm motility | 52. 80 ± 2. 77 | 53. 20 ± 4. 82 | 1. 00 ± 2. 24 a | 33. 40 ± 12. 22 ab |
| Sperm viability | 60. 00 ± 1. 58 | 60. 80 ± 8. 23 | 1. 40 ± 3. 13 a | 57. 20 ± 8. 93b |
aSignificant difference vs. control and sham groups(p ≤ 0.05)
bSignificant difference vs. torsion group (p ≤ 0.05)