4.6 Article

Microdissection testicular sperm extraction: Effect of prior biopsy on success of sperm retrieval

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 177, 期 4, 页码 1447-1449

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.11.039

关键词

testis; biopsy; anatomy and histology; infertility, male; azoospermia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We determined the effect of prior biopsies with no sperm seen on the chance of sperm retrieval with microdissection testicular sperm extraction in men with nonobstructive azoospermia. Materials and Methods: A total of 311 men with NOA underwent microdissection testicular sperm extraction. Of these patients 135 underwent no prior biopsies, 159 underwent 1 or 2 diagnostic testicular biopsies per testis and 17 underwent 3 or 4. The outcome measure studied was the success of sperm retrieval with microdissection testicular sperm extraction. Serum follicle-stimulating hormone and histopathological diagnosis were examined as predictive factors for sperm recovery. Results: Spermatozoa were retrieved in 150 men by microdissection testicular sperm extraction (48%). The success of sperm retrieval in patients who underwent 3 to 4 biopsies (23%) was lower than the retrieval rate in patients who underwent no prior biopsies (56%) and 1 to 2 biopsies per testis (51%) (p = 0.04). When histopathology was considered, patients with Sertoli-cell-only diagnosis on prior diagnostic biopsy had lower retrieval rates compared to the group with no biopsies (p = 0.02). Men with maturation arrest and hypospermatogenesis had similar microdissection testicular sperm extraction sperm retrieval rates regardless of the number of prior biopsies. Spermatozoa recovery was independent of serum follicle-stimulating hormone. Conclusions: There is no threshold of prior negative biopsies that precludes the success of sperm retrieval using microdissection testicular sperm extraction. A limited number of testicular biopsies provide limited or no prognostic value for sperm retrieval with microdissection testicular sperm extraction.

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

4.6
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