1
|
Corona G, Minhas S, Giwercman A, Bettocchi C, Dinkelman-Smit M, Dohle G, Fusco F, Kadioglou A, Kliesch S, Kopa Z, Krausz C, Pelliccione F, Pizzocaro A, Rassweiler J, Verze P, Vignozzi L, Weidner W, Maggi M, Sofikitis N. Sperm recovery and ICSI outcomes in men with non-obstructive azoospermia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2020; 25:733-757. [PMID: 31665451 DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmz028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 140] [Impact Index Per Article: 35.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2019] [Revised: 07/18/2019] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Factor affecting sperm retrieval rate (SRR) or pregnancy rates (PR) after testicular sperm extraction (TESE) in patients with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) have not been systematically evaluated. In addition, although micro-TESE (mTESE) has been advocated as the gold standard for sperm retrieval in men with NOA, its superiority over conventional TESE (cTESE) remains conflicting. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE The objective was to perform a meta-analysis of the currently available studies comparing the techniques of sperm retrieval and to identify clinical and biochemical factors predicting SRR in men with NOA. In addition, PRs and live birth rates (LBRs), as derived from subjects with NOA post-ICSI, were also analysed as secondary outcomes. SEARCH METHODS An extensive Medline, Embase and Cochrane search was performed. All trials reporting SRR derived from cTESE or mTESE in patients with NOA and their specific determinants were included. Data derived from genetic causes of NOA or testicular sperm aspiration were excluded. OUTCOMES Out of 1236 studies, 117 studies met the inclusion criteria for this study, enrolling 21 404 patients with a mean age (± SD) of 35.0 ± 2.7 years. cTESE and mTESE were used in 56 and 43 studies, respectively. In addition, 10 studies used a mixed approach and 8 studies compared cTESE with mTESE approach. Overall, a SRR per TESE procedure of 47[45;49]% (mean percentage [95% CI]) was found. No differences were observed when mTESE was compared to cTESE (46[43;49]% for cTESE versus 46[42;49]% for mTESE). Meta-regression analysis demonstrated that SRR per cycle was independent of age and hormonal parameters at enrolment. However, the SRR increased as a function of testis volume. In particular, by applying ROC curve analysis, a mean testis volume higher than 12.5 ml predicted SRR >60% with an accuracy of 86.2% ± 0.01. In addition, SRR decreased as a function of the number of Klinefelter's syndrome cases included (S = -0.02[-0.04;-0.01]; P < 0.01. I = 0.12[-0.05;0.29]; P = 0.16). Information on fertility outcomes after ICSI was available in 42 studies. Overall, a total of 1096 biochemical pregnancies were reported (cumulative PR = 29[25;32]% per ICSI cycle). A similar rate was observed when LBR was analysed (569 live births with a cumulative LBR = 24[20;28]% per ICSI cycle). No influence of male and female age, mean testis volume or hormonal parameters on both PR and LBR per ICSI cycle was observed. Finally, a higher PR per ICSI cycle was observed when the use of fresh sperm was compared to cryopreserved sperm (PR = 35[30;40]%, versus 20[13;29]% respectively): however, this result was not confirmed when cumulative LBR per ICSI cycle was analysed (LBR = 30[20;41]% for fresh versus 20[12;31]% for cryopreserved sperm). WIDER IMPLICATIONS This analysis shows that cTESE/mTESE in subjects with NOA results in SRRs of up to 50%, with no differences when cTESE was compared to mTESE. Retrieved sperms resulted in a LBR of up to 28% ICSI cycle. Although no difference between techniques was found, to conclusively clarify if one technique is superior to the other, there is a need for a sufficiently powered and well-designed randomized controlled trial to compare mTESE to cTESE in men with NOA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giovanni Corona
- Endocrinology Unit, Medical Department, Endocrinology Unit, Azienda Usl Bologna Maggiore-Bellaria Hospital, Bologna, Italy
| | - Suks Minhas
- Department of Urology, Imperial College NHS Healthcare, London, UK
| | - Aleksander Giwercman
- Molecular Reproductive Medicine, Department of Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Carlo Bettocchi
- Department of Urology, Andrology and Kidney Transplantation Unit, Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University of Bari, Bari, Italy
| | | | - Gert Dohle
- Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ferdinando Fusco
- Department of Neurosciences, Human Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Ates Kadioglou
- Department of Urology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, University of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Sabine Kliesch
- Department of Clinical and Surgical Andrology, Centre of Reproductive Medicine and Andrology (CeRA), Münster University Hospital (UKM), Münster, Germany
| | - Zsolt Kopa
- Andrology Centre, Department of Urology Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Csilla Krausz
- Andrology, Women's Endocrinology and Gender Inconguence Unit, Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - Fiore Pelliccione
- Diabetes and Metabolism Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Azienda ASL 02 Chieti-Lanciano-Vasto, F. Renzetti Hospital, Lanciano, Italy
| | - Alessandro Pizzocaro
- Endocrinology Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University and Humanitas Research Center IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Jens Rassweiler
- Department of Urology, SLK-Kliniken Heilbronn, University of Heidelberg, Heilbronn, Germany
| | - Paolo Verze
- Department of Neurosciences, Human Reproduction and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Linda Vignozzi
- Andrology, Women's Endocrinology and Gender Inconguence Unit, Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - Wolfgang Weidner
- Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Justus Liebig University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany
| | - Mario Maggi
- Diabetes and Metabolism Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Azienda ASL 02 Chieti-Lanciano-Vasto, F. Renzetti Hospital, Lanciano, Italy
| | - Nikolaos Sofikitis
- Department of Urology, Ioannina University School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Computerized cell-scanning system for evaluating human spermatogenesis in non-obstructive azoospermic patients. Reprod Biomed Online 2011; 24:101-8. [PMID: 22133909 DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.09.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2011] [Revised: 09/13/2011] [Accepted: 09/15/2011] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
There may be incompatibility between testicular histopathological evaluation and testicular sperm extraction (TESE) outcome. Assessment for sperm presence and different pathological disturbances of non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) remains challenging. An assay for maximal sampling and accurate identification of testicular cells from NOA patients undergoing TESE and autopsied fertile controls was developed. Testicular cells stained and scanned automatically for morphology underwent fluorescence in-situ hybridization using centromeric probes for chromosomes X, Y and 18 after destaining. Cells were automatically classified according to ploidy, and ratios of haploid cells and autosomal (18) and sex-chromosome bivalent rates were calculated. Identification of testicular cells in suspension enabled prediction of spermatogenesis in seven of eight Sertoli-cell-only syndrome patients. Haploid/diploid cell ratios were 67.6:32.2 for controls and 9.6:90.4 for patients. Both autosomal (18) and sex-chromosome bivalents were present in patients (4.1 ± 5.82%) and controls (19.7 ± 8.95%). Few tetraploid pachytene spermatocytes were observed. More secondary spermatocytes with NOA showed two distinct signals for chromosome 18 (27.9 ± 32.69%) compared with controls (0.4 ± 0.35%). The computerized cell-scanning system enables simultaneous application of morphology and chromosome analysis of testicular cells, which enhance assessing different pathological disturbances and estimating the likelihood of a successful second TESE procedure.
Collapse
|