| Literature DB >> 29777145 |
Yi-No Kang1, Ya-Wen Hsiao2, Chien-Yu Chen1,3,4,5, Chien-Chih Wu6,7,8,9.
Abstract
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is well established and provides patients with severely impaired sperm quality with an opportunity to father a child. However, previous studies do not clearly indicate whether male with cryptozoospermia should use testicular sperm or ejaculated sperm for ICSI. The newest systematic review of this topic also gave a controversial conclusion that was based on incorrect pooling result. Moreover, two clinical studies published after the systematic review. In the present update systematic review and meta-analysis, a comprehensive citation search for relevant studies was performed using the Cochrane library databases, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science up to September 2017. The search returned 313 records, in which six studies were included in quantitative synthesis. These studies involved 578 male infertility patients who had undergone 761 ICSI cycles. The risk ratios favour fresh testicular sperm for good quality embryo rate (1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30, P = 0.005), implantation rate (95% CI 1.02-2.26, P = 0.04), and pregnancy rate (RR = 1.74, 95% CI 1.20-2.52, P = 0.004). In conclusion, the existing evidence suggests that testicular sperm is better than ejaculated sperm for ICSI in male with cryptozoospermia.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29777145 PMCID: PMC5959851 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-26280-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Diagram of this systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
Characteristics and risk of bias of included studies.
| Study & country | Study type | No. of patients | Included years | Mean paternal age (y) | Mean Maternal age (y) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ejaculated | Testicular | Ejaculated | Testicular | ||||
| Amirjannati | Cohort study | 192a | 2005–2009 | 36.85 ± 5.34e | 40.68 ± 4.94e | 31.85 ± 5.76e | 35 ± 5.91e |
| Ben-Ami | Cohort study | 17a | 2010–2011 | 32.8 ± 5.3e | 36.3 ± 6.6d,e | 29.1 ± 3.4e | 30.9 ± 4.1d,e |
| Bendikson | Cohort study | 16a | 1993–2005 | 36.7 ± 5e | 37 ± 4e | 31.6 ± 5e | 32 ± 5e |
| Cui | Cohort study | 285b | 2009–2013 | 34.24 ± 4.83f | 35.12 ± 6.25f | 28.15 ± 5.32f | 29.31 ± 5.87f |
| Hauser | Cohort study | 13a | 1996–2009 | 36.7 ± 8.3c,e | 32.7 ± 4.5e | 34.1 ± 5.1d,e | |
| Ketabchi | Prospective cohort study | 55b | 2011–2014 | NR | NR | NR | NR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| |||||
| Amirjannati | 208 | 19 | 0 | mTESE | Sperm count, normal morpholoy and vitality | Fertilisation rate,Embryo quality | 8 stars |
| Ben-Ami | 68 | 31 | 17 | TESE | NR | Fertilisation rate,Pregnancy rate | 8 stars |
| Bendikson | 27 | 21 | 0 | TESE | Genetic screening,sperm count | Fertilisation rate,Implantation rate,Pregnancy rate, | 8 stars |
| Cui | 166 | 56 | 0 | TESE or TESA | Testicular volume, sperm count, FSH level, BMI | Fertilisation rate, Embryo quality, Implantation rate, Pregnancy rate | 9 stars |
| Hauser | 34 | 9 | 50 | TESE | Genetic screening, FSH level, testicular size, testicular histology | Fertilisation rate,Embryo quality,Implantation rate,Pregnancy rate | 9 stars |
| Ketabchi | 38 | 17 | 0 | TESE | NR | Fertilisation rate,Embryo quality, Implantation rate, Pregnancy rate | 7 stars |
aSome patients underwent ICSI with both ejaculated sperm and testicular sperm. bEjaculated sperm group and testicular sperm group consisted of different patients. cMixed data of ejaculated sperm and testicular sperm groups. dMixed data of fresh testicular sperm group and frozen sperm groups. eMean ± standard deviation. fMean ± standard error. NR, not reported; FSH, follicle-stimulating hormone; BMI, body mass index; SDF, sperm DNA fragmentation; TESE, testicular sperm extraction; mTESE, microdissection TESE; TESA, testicular sperm aspiration.
Figure 2Forest plot of fertilisation rate between testicular and ejaculated sperm.
Figure 3Forest plot of good-embryo rate between testicular and ejaculated sperm.
Figure 4Forest plot of implantation rate between testicular and ejaculated sperm.
Figure 5Forest plot of pregnancy rate between testicular and ejaculated sperm.