4.4 Article

Treatment strategies for severe oligoasthenoteratozoospermia (OAT) (<0.1 million/mL) patients

期刊

ANDROLOGY
卷 3, 期 5, 页码 856-863

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/andr.12077

关键词

intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI); oligoasthenoteratozoospermia (OAT); pre-values; TESE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) using spermatozoa from patients with severe oligoasthenoteratozoospermia is still a challenge. Although spermatozoa are available, lower fertilisation rates as well as compromised pregnancy rates are observed after ICSI. We aimed at identifying respective parameters in the pre-values of ejaculate samples used for couple counselling. The clinical pre-values of 121 patients and their corresponding 228 ICSI cycles performed between 2002 and 2010 were retrospectively analysed. Patients were divided into three groups: (i) group 1 (G1, n = 51) where all patients showed at least once <0.1 million/mL and ICSI was performed using ejaculate alone; (ii) group 2 (G2, n = 14) patients had once <0.1 Mill/mL or azoospermia and a testicular biopsy before start of ICSI; (iii) group 3 (G3, n = 56) patients were azoospermic and directed immediately to testicular sperm extraction (TESE). The pre-values of G2 differed significantly from G1 in terms of volume and motility. Lutenizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) values were equal in G1 and G2, but showed significant differences in comparison to G3. Testis volume was significantly higher in G3. In the corresponding ICSI cycles, the percentage of cancelled embryo transfers was highest in G3. We did not find any correlations of hormonal markers or sperm pre-values with the success rates of ICSI. In our patient cohort, spermatozoa retrieved either from ejaculate or testicular biopsies have nearly identical chances in achieving pregnancies. Patients in need of TESE before ICSI have significantly lower sperm counts. However, it is not possible to calculate threshold values as indicator for TESE.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据