ReviewReproductive medicine and biology2016
The development of surgical sperm extraction and new challenges to improve the outcome.
Review in Reproductive medicine and biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03991663 (Prospective Cohort Study for Azoospermia Patients in Clinical Reproductive Medicine Management System/Electronic Medical Record Cohort Database), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Prospective Cohort Study for Azoospermia Patients in Clinical Reproductive Medicine Management System/Electronic Medical Record Cohort Database (CCRM/EMRCD)
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global Andrology Forum (GAF) Clinical Guidelines on the Management of Non-obstructive Azoospermia: Bridging the Gap between Controversy and Consensus.The world journal of men's health · 2026Article
- Does Clomiphene citrate administration increase the success rate of microdissection testicular sperm extraction in non-obstructive azoospermic men? A cross-sectional study.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2023Article
- Two Decades from the Introduction of Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction: How This Surgical Technique Has Improved the Management of NOA.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Differences in clinical outcomes between men with mosaic Klinefelter syndrome and those with non-mosaic Klinefelter syndrome.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical sperm extraction with intracytoplasmic sperm injection has become widespread worldwide and is regarded as the sole option for patients with azoospermia. However, the sperm retrieval rate remains unsatisfactorily low, particularly for men with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA). Therefore, the technical challenges associated with improving the sperm retrieval rate for men with NOA are being addressed. The most successful method developed to date is microdissection testicular sperm extraction (micro-TESE), which is rapidly becoming recognized as a useful technique due to its relatively high sperm retrieval rate and low complication rate. However, even with micro-TESE, the sperm retrieval rate for men with NOA remains at 30-60 %, with an even lower birth rate. The technical challenges associated with improving the outcomes of surgical sperm extraction are being approached through the use of ultrasound and optimal surgical devices such as narrow band imaging, multiphoton microscopy, and optical coherent tomography. In addition to the difficulties related to searching for sperm, medical treatments that induce spermatogenesis remain controversial. For example, varicocele repair prior to surgical sperm extraction and hormonal therapy before and after TESE have been extensively examined. We herein briefly summarized the development process in surgical sperm extraction up to the present and technical challenges to improve the outcomes of surgical sperm extraction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.