PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of simultaneous testicular touch-print cytology, testicular histopathology, and wet preparation in nonobstructive azoospermic (NOA) males. METHODS: Three hundred and sixty-three males with NOA underwent a multiple testicular sampling prior to ICSI for histopathologic evaluation, diagnostic testicular sperm extraction, and simultaneous touch-print cytology to evaluate sperm presence or absence. A total of 979 testicular samples were taken. RESULTS: Sperm recovery was achieved in 106 cases (29.2%). Patients with hypospermatogenesis and focal spermatogenesis needed 2.8 and 5.9 biopsies, respectively, to retrieve spermatozoa, while in patients with germ cell aplasia and maturation arrest, even after eight to nine samples no spermatozoa were recovered. Neither the FSH levels nor the testicular volume was found to be significant in the prediction of sperm recovery. If only a single testis was to be biopsied, 25% of the cases with sperm recovery would have been missed. The combination of touch-print cytology with histopathology and wet preparation increased the accuracy of spermatozoa identification. CONCLUSION: Touch-print cytology was found to be more predictive than wet preparation in the diagnosis of spermatogenesis; moreover, it was found to be a quick and easy technique providing an accurate diagnosis in prediction of sperm recovery.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of simultaneous testicular touch-print cytology, testicular histopathology, and wet preparation in nonobstructive azoospermic (NOA) males. METHODS: Three hundred and sixty-three males with NOA underwent a multiple testicular sampling prior to ICSI for histopathologic evaluation, diagnostic testicular sperm extraction, and simultaneous touch-print cytology to evaluate sperm presence or absence. A total of 979 testicular samples were taken. RESULTS: Sperm recovery was achieved in 106 cases (29.2%). Patients with hypospermatogenesis and focal spermatogenesis needed 2.8 and 5.9 biopsies, respectively, to retrieve spermatozoa, while in patients with germ cell aplasia and maturation arrest, even after eight to nine samples no spermatozoa were recovered. Neither the FSH levels nor the testicular volume was found to be significant in the prediction of sperm recovery. If only a single testis was to be biopsied, 25% of the cases with sperm recovery would have been missed. The combination of touch-print cytology with histopathology and wet preparation increased the accuracy of spermatozoa identification. CONCLUSION: Touch-print cytology was found to be more predictive than wet preparation in the diagnosis of spermatogenesis; moreover, it was found to be a quick and easy technique providing an accurate diagnosis in prediction of sperm recovery.
Authors: S Kahraman; S Ozgür; C Alataş; S Aksoy; B Balaban; T Evrenkaya; A Nuhoğlu; M Taşdemir; K Biberoğlu; R Schoysman; P Vanderzwalmen; M Nijs Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 1996-03 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Isil Z Yildiz-Aktas; Sara E Monaco; Walid E Khalbuss; Anil V Parwani; Thomas M Jaffe; Liron Pantanowitz Journal: Cytojournal Date: 2011-12-27 Impact factor: 2.091