4.4 Article

Microdissection testicular sperm extraction and IVF-ICSI outcome in nonobstructive azoospermia

Journal

ANDROLOGIA
Volume 40, Issue 4, Pages 219-226

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0272.2008.00846.x

Keywords

azoospermia; histology; IVF/ICSI outcome; sperm retrieval; testis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We evaluated the efficiency of microdissection testicular sperm extraction (MicroTESE) in patients with nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA) and their pregnancy outcomes in a programme based on in vitro fertilisation (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Fifty-six MicroTESE procedures were performed in 53 patients with NOA. Pre-operative levels of luteinising hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), testosterone and prolactin were obtained and a Doppler sonography examination was conducted. Sperm retrieval rate, mean age of female partner, mean ICSI and fertilisation rate, number and quality of embryos transferred, implantation, pregnancy and miscarriage rates were calculated. Samples for testicular histological analysis were taken trans-operatively in every case. Sperm retrieval rate, mean ICSI per case and fertilisation rate were 57.1%, 7.4% and 58.4% respectively. A significant difference in pre-operative testicular volume (P = 0.001), serum FSH (P = 0.008) and total testosterone levels (P = 0.021) was found in patients from whom sperm could be retrieved. Mean 1.9 type A embryos were transferred per cycle. Implantation, clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates were 20%, 40% and 18.7% respectively. It is concluded that MicroTESE is a viable option for men with NOA, offering excellent results in couples undergoing IVF-ICSI. Pre-operative serum FSH, testicular volume and total testosterone levels may have a prognostic value, although more data are needed to determine their significance and whether or not patients should be excluded from an initial sperm retrieval attempt.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available