4.2 Article

Outcome of gonadotropin therapy for male infertility due to hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism

Journal

PITUITARY
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages 105-110

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11102-009-0203-1

Keywords

Hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism; Gonadotropins; Male infertility

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Data on the management of male infertility secondary to hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism (HH) are limited. We report our extensive experience with intramuscular injections of gonadotropins, one of the two methods used for this purpose. Eighty-seven married men (median age, 28 years) with either congenital (47 men) or acquired (40 men) HH were treated for a median of 26 months (range, 6-57) with intramuscular injections of gonadotropins (HCG/HMG) three times weekly for the purpose of achieving fertility. The outcome was assessed by achievement of one or more pregnancies. Of the 151 courses of HCG/HMG treatment administered to 87 patients, 85 courses (56.3%) were successful, resulting in 85 pregnancies (median pregnancy rate 2, range 1-10) in 35 patients (40%) while 52 cases did not achieve pregnancy. Responders had larger pretherapy testicular volume (9 +/- A 3.6 cc) compared to non-responders [(5.7 +/- A 2.0 cc), P < 0.0001], but there was no difference in age, LH, FSH or testosterone levels or doses of HCG/HMG used. The pregnancy rate was similar in those with congenital (51.4%) and acquired causes (48.6%) of HH (P = 0.83). Only testicular size was predictive of conception (P < 0.001, odds ratio 1.5, 95% CI 1.21-1.92) while age, pretherapy levels of testosterone, LH, FSH and doses of HCG/HMG did not predict the success of pregnancy. Gonadotropins are moderately effective in achieving one to several pregnancies in HH. Only testicular size is predictive of success in achieving pregnancy. There is no difference in success between those with congenital and acquired causes of HH.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available