ArticleTurkish journal of urology2019
Analysis of factors affecting repeat microdissection testicular sperm extraction outcomes in infertile men.
Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Second chance in fertility: a comprehensive narrative review of redo micro-TESE outcomes after initial failure.Asian journal of andrology · 2025Review
- FSH levels and testicular volumes are associated with the severity of testicular histopathology in men with non-obstructive azoospermia.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Article
- [Testicular sperm extraction in male infertility : Indications, success rates, practical implementation, and possible complications].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021Review
- Three-dimensional simulation analysis of microdissection testicular sperm extraction for patients with non-obstructive azoospermia.Andrology · 2020Article
- A comprehensive assessment of predictors of fertility outcomes in men with non-obstructive azoospermia undergoing microdissection testicular sperm extraction.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThere is no clear consensus on which patients and how many of microscopic testicular sperm extraction (mTESE) procedures will be successful. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the sperm retrieval rates and factors affecting these rates in men who underwent repeat mTESEs. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 346 patients who underwent mTESE for sperm retrieval were included in the study. Patients were divided into groups according to the number of mTESE operations. Patients' karyotype, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and testosterone levels, varicocele presence, and testis volumes were recorded from patient files. The sperm retrieval rates were compared between groups, and predicting factors for successful sperm retrieval were evaluated.
resultsMicroscopic TESE was applied for the first time in 244 patients, 1-2 times in 73 patients, and 3-4 times in 29 patients. There was a significant difference between groups in preoperative FSH values and postoperative testicular histopathology (p=0.004 and p<0.001). The sperm retrieval rate in the group of patients who had not undergone previous TESE was higher than the group of patients that had undergone TESE for 1-2 times and 3-4 times (p=0.028). In addition, testicular volume, histology, karyotype, and Y-chromosome microdeletion were predicting factors for successful sperm retrieval (p=0.011, p=0.039, p=0.002, and p<0.001, respectively).
conclusionOur results confirm the necessity for repeat mTESE operations to be performed by experienced surgeons in reference centers to optimize the chance of reduced sperm retrieval rates with recurrent biopsies.
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.