Outcome of microdissection TESE compared with conventional TESE in non‐obstructive azoospermia: a systematic review
Top Cited Papers
- 6 November 2013
- Vol. 2 (1), 20-24
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2047-2927.2013.00148.x
Abstract
Retrieval of spermatozoa is unfortunately still only successful in a subset of patients suffering from non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) by conventional testicular sperm extraction (TESE). Microdissection TESE may have some theoretical benefits over conventional TESE, but uncertainty exists about its superiority. The objective of this systematic review was therefore to compare the efficacy and safety of microTESE with conventional TESE in men with NOA. The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. Literature was searched for studies comparing outcome of conventional TESE with microdissection TESE. Primary outcome was sperm retrieval rate (SRR). Secondary outcomes were clinical predictors of sperm retrieval as well as complication rate. Of 62 articles, a total of seven studies were included in the final analysis. Overall SRR was significantly higher in the microTESE group in comparison with conventional TESE in five of these studies. Overall sperm retrieval ranged from 16.7 to 45% in the conventional TESE vs. 42.9 to 63% in the microTESE group. A sub-analysis of the SRR according to testicular histology was available in four of the selected articles. MicroTESE in men with Sertoli cell only syndrome and hypospermatogenesis carried a small but significant more favourable outcome according to, respectively, two and one of the studies. Correlation of serum follicle stimulating hormone and testicular volume with positive outcome was variable. Fewer complications were observed on ultrasound examination after microTESE procedure. Clinical randomized studies comparing microTESE with conventional TESE in NOA are still lacking to date. Pseudo-randomized prospective data, however, show more favourable sperm retrieval in NOA for microTESE, especially in histological patterns of patchy spermatogenesis such as Sertoli cell only syndrome. However, in patients with uniform histological patterns such as maturation arrest outcome of microTESE seems less favourable.Keywords
This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- Clinical Comparison of Conventional Testicular Sperm Extraction and Microdissection Techniques for Non-Obstructive AzoospermiaJournal of Clinical Medicine Research, 2011
- Conventional testicular sperm extraction combined with the microdissection technique in nonobstructive azoospermic patients: a prospective comparative studyFertility and Sterility, 2010
- High serum FSH levels in men with nonobstructive azoospermia does not affect success of microdissection testicular sperm extractionFertility and Sterility, 2009
- Microsurgical TESE versus conventional TESE for ICSI in non-obstructive azoospermia: a randomized controlled studyReproductive BioMedicine Online, 2009
- Which is the best sperm retrieval technique for non-obstructive azoospermia? A systematic reviewHuman Reproduction Update, 2007
- Structural and functional changes to the testis after conventional versus microdissection testicular sperm extractionUrology, 2005
- The Utility of Optical Loupe Magnification for Testis Sperm Extraction in Men With Nonobstructive AzoospermiaJournal of Andrology, 2005
- Testicular Sperm Extraction with Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection is Successful for the Treatment of Nonobstructive Azoospermia Associated with CryptorchidismJournal of Urology, 2003
- Conventional Versus Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction for Nonobstructive AzoospermiaJournal of Urology, 2002