Testicular sperm extraction (TESE) is often an effective method for sperm retrieval from men with non-obstructive azoospermia. However, TESE has been a blind procedure that does not identify the focal sperm-producing areas of the testicle until after tissue has been excised from the patient. Experience with a new technique of microdissection of testicular tubules is presented here that identifies sperm-containing regions before their removal. Identification of spermatogenically active regions of the testicle is possible by direct examination of the individual seminiferous tubules. The underlying concept for this technique is simple: seminiferous tubules containing many developing germ cells, rather than Sertoli cells alone, are likely to be larger and more opaque than tubules without sperm production. In a sequential series of TESE cases for men with non-obstructive azoospermia, the ability to find spermatozoa increased from 45% (10/22) to 63% (17/27) after introduction of the microdissection technique. Microdissected samples yielded an average of 160,000 spermatozoa per sample in only 9.4 mg of tissue, whereas only 64,000 spermatozoa were found in standard biopsy samples that averaged 720 mg in weight (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). For men where microdissection was attempted, successful identification of enlarged tubules was possible in 56% (15/27) of cases. However, spermatozoa were retrieved with microdissection TESE for six men in whom sperm retrieval was unsuccessful with standard TESE approaches (35% of all men with spermatozoa retrieved). These findings suggest that microdissection TESE can improve sperm retrieval for men with non-obstructive azoospermia over that achieved with previously described biopsy techniques.

No abstract

Background New York City was the international epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. Health care providers responded by rapidly transitioning from in-person to video consultations. Telemedicine (ie, video visits) is a potentially disruptive innovation; however, little is known about patient satisfaction with this emerging alternative to the traditional clinical encounter. Objective This study aimed to determine if patient satisfaction differs between video and in-person visits. Methods In this retrospective observational cohort study, we analyzed 38,609 Press Ganey patient satisfaction survey outcomes from clinic encounters (620 video visits vs 37,989 in-person visits) at a single-institution, urban, quaternary academic medical center in New York City for patients aged 18 years, from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. Time was categorized as pre–COVID-19 and COVID-19 (before vs after March 4, 2020). Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests and multivariable linear regression were used for hypothesis testing and statistical modeling, respectively. Results We experienced an 8729% increase in video visit utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the same period last year. Video visit Press Ganey scores were significantly higher than in-person visits (94.9% vs 92.5%; P<.001). In adjusted analyses, video visits (parameter estimate [PE] 2.18; 95% CI 1.20-3.16) and the COVID-19 period (PE 0.55; 95% CI 0.04-1.06) were associated with higher patient satisfaction. Younger age (PE –2.05; 95% CI –2.66 to –1.22), female gender (PE –0.73; 95% CI –0.96 to –0.50), and new visit type (PE –0.75; 95% CI –1.00 to –0.49) were associated with lower patient satisfaction. Conclusions Patient satisfaction with video visits is high and is not a barrier toward a paradigm shift away from traditional in-person clinic visits. Future research comparing other clinic visit quality indicators is needed to guide and implement the widespread adoption of telemedicine.