4.7 Article

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

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 104, 期 5, 页码 1099-+

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.1136

关键词

Meta-analysis; microdissection testicular sperm extraction; nonobstructive azoospermia; sperm retrieval; testicular sperm aspiration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the relative differences in outcomes among microdissection testicular sperm extraction (micro-TESE), conventional testicular sperm extraction (cTESE), and testicular sperm aspiration (TESA) in men with nonobstructive azoospermia. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting: Outpatient academic and private urology clinics. Patients(s): Men with nonobstructive azoospermia. Intervention( s): Micro-TESE, cTESE, or TESA. Main Outcome Measure(s): Sperm retrieval (SR). Result(s): Fifteen studies with a total of 1,890 patients were identified. The weighted average age of the patients was 34.4 years, the follicular stimulating hormone level was 20.5 mIU/mL, the T was 373 ng/dL, and the testicular volume was 13.5 mL. In a direct comparison, performance of micro-TESE was 1.5 times more likely (95% confidence interval 1.4-1.6) to result in successful SR as compared with cTESE. Similarly, in a direct comparison, performance of cTESE was 2.0 times more likely (95% confidence interval 1.8-2.2) to result in successful SR as compared with TESA. Because of inconsistent reporting, evaluation of other procedural characteristics and pregnancy outcomes was not possible. Conclusion(s): Sperm retrieval was higher for micro-TESE compared with cTESE and for cTESE compared with TESA. Standardization of reported outcomes as well as combining all available SR data would help to further elucidate the SRs of these procedures. (C) 2015 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

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

4.7
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