Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Which is the best sperm retrieval technique for non-obstructive azoospermia? A systematic review

Which is the best sperm retrieval technique for non-obstructive azoospermia? A systematic review Our objective was to establish which is the best sperm retrieval technique in non-obstructive azoospermia based on the available evidence. To date, no randomized controlled trial has compared the efficiency of these strategies and thus current recommendations are based on cumulative evidence provided by descriptive, observational and controlled studies. Three outcome measures were assessed for the sperm retrieval techniques: sperm retrieval rate (SRR), complications and live birth rate. Twenty-four descriptive studies reporting on the results of testicular sperm extraction (TESE) were encountered. Seven controlled studies that compared microdissection (MD) TESE with conventional TESE and seven controlled studies comparing fine needle testicular aspiration (FNA) with TESE were identified. The mean SRR for TESE was 49.5 (95 CI 49.049.9). TESE with multiple biopsies results in a higher SRR than FNA especially in cases of Sertoli-cell-only (SCO) syndrome and maturation arrest. Current evidence suggests that MD performs better than conventional TESE only in cases of SCO where tubules containing active focus of spermatogenesis can be identified. MD appears to be the safest technique regarding post-operative complications followed by FNA. Only three studies could be identified concerning the influence of the sperm retrieval technique on clinical pregnancy and live birth rate, hence no definitive conclusions can be made. However, so far there appears to be no impact of the technique itself on success rates. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Human Reproduction Update Oxford University Press

Which is the best sperm retrieval technique for non-obstructive azoospermia? A systematic review

Human Reproduction Update , Volume 13 (6) – Nov 1, 2007

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/which-is-the-best-sperm-retrieval-technique-for-non-obstructive-3s6U8xp0AI

References (130)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
Subject
Reviews
ISSN
1355-4786
eISSN
1460-2369
DOI
10.1093/humupd/dmm029
pmid
17895238
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Our objective was to establish which is the best sperm retrieval technique in non-obstructive azoospermia based on the available evidence. To date, no randomized controlled trial has compared the efficiency of these strategies and thus current recommendations are based on cumulative evidence provided by descriptive, observational and controlled studies. Three outcome measures were assessed for the sperm retrieval techniques: sperm retrieval rate (SRR), complications and live birth rate. Twenty-four descriptive studies reporting on the results of testicular sperm extraction (TESE) were encountered. Seven controlled studies that compared microdissection (MD) TESE with conventional TESE and seven controlled studies comparing fine needle testicular aspiration (FNA) with TESE were identified. The mean SRR for TESE was 49.5 (95 CI 49.049.9). TESE with multiple biopsies results in a higher SRR than FNA especially in cases of Sertoli-cell-only (SCO) syndrome and maturation arrest. Current evidence suggests that MD performs better than conventional TESE only in cases of SCO where tubules containing active focus of spermatogenesis can be identified. MD appears to be the safest technique regarding post-operative complications followed by FNA. Only three studies could be identified concerning the influence of the sperm retrieval technique on clinical pregnancy and live birth rate, hence no definitive conclusions can be made. However, so far there appears to be no impact of the technique itself on success rates.

Journal

Human Reproduction UpdateOxford University Press

Published: Nov 1, 2007

Keywords: Keywords non obstructive azoospermia sperm retrieval testicular sperm extraction

There are no references for this article.