OBJECTIVE: To report the chance of sperm discovery in the laboratory when sperm were not identified in the operating room (OR). DESIGN: Clinical retrospective study. SETTING: Department of urology at a tertiary university hospital. PATIENT(S): A total of 1,054 men with nonobstructive azoospermia who underwent microdissection testicular sperm extraction. INTERVENTION(S): Preoperative and intraoperative parameters were analyzed relative to the chance of sperm identification using a tissue digestion protocol in the laboratory if no sperm were observed in the OR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Sperm retrieval, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates. RESULT(S): Sperm were found in the OR in 52.5% of the 1,054 men. Of the 501 men for whom sperm were not identified by andrologists in the OR, sperm were found in the laboratory for an additional 35 (7%). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the presence of germ cells intraoperatively was the only predictor of identifying sperm in the laboratory after tissue digestion. CONCLUSION(S): In men undergoing microdissection testicular sperm extraction, when sperm were not observed in the OR despite extensive mechanical processing, sperm were observed in the laboratory for 7% of the men. This information is valuable in counseling couples in the immediate postoperative period when no sperm were identified intraoperatively.
OBJECTIVE: To report the chance of sperm discovery in the laboratory when sperm were not identified in the operating room (OR). DESIGN: Clinical retrospective study. SETTING: Department of urology at a tertiary university hospital. PATIENT(S): A total of 1,054 men with nonobstructive azoospermia who underwent microdissection testicular sperm extraction. INTERVENTION(S): Preoperative and intraoperative parameters were analyzed relative to the chance of sperm identification using a tissue digestion protocol in the laboratory if no sperm were observed in the OR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Sperm retrieval, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates. RESULT(S): Sperm were found in the OR in 52.5% of the 1,054 men. Of the 501 men for whom sperm were not identified by andrologists in the OR, sperm were found in the laboratory for an additional 35 (7%). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the presence of germ cells intraoperatively was the only predictor of identifying sperm in the laboratory after tissue digestion. CONCLUSION(S): In men undergoing microdissection testicular sperm extraction, when sperm were not observed in the OR despite extensive mechanical processing, sperm were observed in the laboratory for 7% of the men. This information is valuable in counseling couples in the immediate postoperative period when no sperm were identified intraoperatively.
Authors: Campbell F Bryson; Ranjith Ramasamy; Matthew Sheehan; Gianpiero D Palermo; Zev Rosenwaks; Peter N Schlegel Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Tahereh Modarresi; Marjan Sabbaghian; Abdolhossein Shahverdi; Hani Hosseinifar; Ali Asghar Akhlaghi; Mohammad Ali Sadighi Gilani Journal: Iran J Reprod Med Date: 2013-06