Comparison of microdissection testicular sperm extraction, conventional testicular sperm extraction, and testicular sperm aspiration for nonobstructive azoospermia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Bernie, Aaron; Mata, Douglas A.; Ramasamy, Ranjith; Schlegel, Peter N.

doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.1136

Cited by 254 publications

(197 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

186

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In many referral fertility centres, c-TESE has been replaced by micro-TESE, because most of infertile couples ask for this procedure during their first consultation (Deruyver et al, 2014;Bernie et al, 2015). Nevertheless, it should be considered that micro-TESE requires magnification equipment, which means higher costs, longer operative times and it is associated with a significant learning curve.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conventional testicular sperm extraction (TESE) and non‐obstructive azoospermia: is there still a chance in the era of microdissection TESE? Results from a single non‐academic community hospital

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYSpermatozoa can be retrieved in non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) patients despite the absence of ejaculated spermatozoa in their semen because of the presence of isolated foci with active spermatogenesis. Conventional testicular sperm extraction (c-TESE) in patients with NOA has been partially replaced by micro-TESE. It is still under debate the problem regarding the higher costs related to micro-TESE when compared with c-TESE. In this study, we evaluated sperm retrieval rate (SRR) of c-TESE in naive NOA patients. Sixty-three NOA patients were referred to our centre for a c-TESE. For every subject, we collected demographic data, cause of infertility, time to first infertility diagnosis, serum levels of LH, FSH, total testosterone and prolactin. A statistical analysis was conducted to correlate all the clinical variables, the histology and the Johnsen score with the SRR. Sixty-three consecutive NOA patients with a mean age of 37.3 years were included. The positive SRR was 47.6%. No statistical differences were observed between positive vs. negative SRR regarding mean FSH (17.12 vs. 19.03 mUI/mL; p = 0.72), and LH (9.72 vs. 6.92 mUI/mL; p = 0.39) values. Interestingly, we found a statistically significant difference in terms of time to first infertility diagnosis (+SRR vs. ÀSRR; 44.5 vs. 57 months; p = 0.02) and regarding to age (+SSR vs. ÀSRR; 40.1 vs. 35.3; p = 0.04). There was a statistically significant decrease in SRRs with the decline in testicular histopathology from hypospermatogenesis to maturation arrest, and SCO. The mean Johnsen score was 5.9 with a mean percentage of Johnsen score ≥8 tubules equal to 19%. The overall pregnancy rate was 26.6%. In our prospective cohort of patients successful SRR with c-TESE was 47.6%. Lower costs and high reproducibility of this technique still support this procedure as an actual reliable option in NOA patients for sperm retrieval.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conventional testicular sperm extraction (TESE) and non‐obstructive azoospermia: is there still a chance in the era of microdissection TESE? Results from a single non‐academic community hospital

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In patients with clinical evidence of NOA, testicular sperm extraction (TESE) is the technique of choice, which rationally has to be planned as a part of in vitro fertilization programs; in this context, microdissection TESE (microTESE) has been advocated as the gold-standard technique to improve sperm yield with minimal tissue excision 12 . However, the lack of useful predictive biomarkers suggestive for successful sperm retrieval at microTESE in NOA men still represents a relevant gap with a very negative return for the patient.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Anti-Mullerian hormone-to-testosterone ratio is predictive of positive sperm retrieval in men with idiopathic non-obstructive azoospermia

Alfano¹,

Ventimiglia²,

Locatelli³

et al. 2018

European Urology Supplements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lack of clinically-reliable biomarkers makes impossible to predict sperm retrieval outcomes at testicular sperm extraction (TESE) in men with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA), resulting in up to 50% of unnecessary surgical interventions. Clinical data, hormonal profile and histological classification of testis parenchyma from 47 white-Caucasian idiopathic NOA (iNOA) men submitted to microdissection TESE (microTESE) were analyzed. Logistic regression analyses tested potential clinical predictors of positive sperm retrieval. The predictive accuracy of all variables was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic-derived area under the curve, and the clinical net benefit estimated by a decision-curve analysis (DCA). Overall, 23 (49%) and 24 (51%) patients were classified as positive and negative sperm retrievals at microTESE. While circulating hormones associated to a condition of primary hypogonadism did not predict sperm retrieval, levels of anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) and the ratio AMH-to-total Testosterone (AMH/tT) achieved independent predictor status for sperm retrieval at microTESE, with a predictive accuracy of 93% and 95%. Using cutoff values of <4.62 ng/ml for AMH and <1.02 for AMH/tT, positive sperm retrieval was predicted in all individuals, with 19 men out of 47 potentially spared from surgery. DCA findings demonstrated clinical net benefit using AMH and AMH/tT for patient selection at microTESE.The relevance of male infertility has progressively grown in Western societies, with significant medical, psychological, and socio-economic implications. Seven out of 100 men are infertile, with up to 40% of infertile conditions still of unexplained or idiopathic origin [1][2][3] . Azoospermia affects about 1% among all men and 10-15% of infertile men 4,5 . With no sperm found at multiple semen analyses, non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) is the most severe form of infertility 1,5 . Despite genetic causes have been associated with male infertility 3,6,7 , genetic defects are found only in 17-20% of NOA individuals [7][8][9][10] . Except for a portion of patients with central endocrine disorders, the remaining 80% of NOA men having negative results on genetic testing are classified as idiopathic NOA (iNOA) 11 .In patients with clinical evidence of NOA, testicular sperm extraction (TESE) is the technique of choice, which rationally has to be planned as a part of in vitro fertilization programs; in this context, microdissection TESE (microTESE) has been advocated as the gold-standard technique to improve sperm yield with minimal

show abstract

“…Thus, patients with NOA associated with varicocele veins should be made aware of the small chance of success in recovering sperm production after surgery, and of the purpose of surgery. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]16 conflict of interest…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should azoospermic patients with varicocele disease undergo surgery to recover fertility?

Alves

Oliveira

2017

Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Varicocele disease is well-known cause of infertility in men. The presence of spermatic varices veins create a hostile environment to spermatogenesis. It results in reduced quality of the sperm production and in some cases can determine a total absence of sperm. The varicocelectomy procedure in patients with nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA) can raise the rates of sperm in the semen analysis. A positive rate for sperm, even if very low, may be sufficient to enable the capture of sperm intended for in-vitro fertilization without the use of donor sperm. Objetive: To evaluate the raise of sperm in NOA patients with varicocele disease who were submitted to a bilateral procedure to recovery sperm production. Method: We analized the sperm results of 25 NOA patients who undergone to a bilateral varicocelectomy procedure. Results: From a total of 25 patients, three (12%) recovered sperm count four months after procedure. One year after the procedure, five (20%) patients recovered sperm production. Conclusion: Patients with varicocele disease and azoospermia, without genetic changes or obstruction of the spermatic tract, should undergo surgical procedure to recover sperm.

show abstract

Comparison of microdissection testicular sperm extraction, conventional testicular sperm extraction, and testicular sperm aspiration for nonobstructive azoospermia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 254 publications

References 25 publications

Conventional testicular sperm extraction (TESE) and non‐obstructive azoospermia: is there still a chance in the era of microdissection TESE? Results from a single non‐academic community hospital

Conventional testicular sperm extraction (TESE) and non‐obstructive azoospermia: is there still a chance in the era of microdissection TESE? Results from a single non‐academic community hospital

Anti-Mullerian hormone-to-testosterone ratio is predictive of positive sperm retrieval in men with idiopathic non-obstructive azoospermia

Should azoospermic patients with varicocele disease undergo surgery to recover fertility?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About