ArticleUrology2020
Microfluidic System for Rapid Isolation of Sperm From Microdissection TESE Specimens.
Article in Urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technologies to improve sperm retrieval in men undergoing micro-TESE for NOA.Asian journal of andrology · 2025Review
- Andrology laboratory techniques for micro-TESE/IVF/ICSI: a narrative review.Asian journal of andrology · 2025Review
- Application of Inertial Microfluidics for Isolation and Removal of Round Spermatids from a Spermatogenic Cell Sample to AssistMicromachines · 2025Article
- Bioengineering Approaches for Male Infertility: From Microenvironmental Regeneration to in vitro Fertilization.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025Review
- Non-Obstructive Azoospermia and Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection: Unveiling the Chances of Success and Possible Consequences for Offspring.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- The influence of the female reproductive tract and sperm features on the design of microfluidic sperm-sorting devices.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Review
- Sperm Selection Procedures for Optimizing the Outcome of ICSI in Patients with NOA.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo demonstrate a novel prototype microfluidic system for rapid isolation of sperm from real and simulated microdissection testicular sperm extraction samples.
methodsThe novel microfluidic system was tested using minced testicular biopsies from patients with nonobstructive azoospermia. The samples were split into 2 portions, conventional processing vs microfluidic. The embryologists were blinded to the processing protocol and searched the specimens for sperm after processing. We recorded the number of sperm found and the time to sperm identification and compared the sperm retrieval rates.
resultsWhen compared to conventional methods, samples processed through the microfluidic system were cleaner (decreased somatic cells/debris), with the average number of sperm identified per minute improving from 1.52 sperm per minute for the control and 13.5 sperm per minute with the device yielding an 8.88 fold improvement in the sperm found per minute for the device as compared to the control. Preliminary viability and morphology tests show a minimal impact on sperm processed through the microfluidic system.
conclusionThe presented microfluidic system can facilitate rapid and efficient isolation of sperm from microdissection testicular sperm extraction samples. A prospective clinical trial to verify these results is needed to confirm this preliminary data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32112776What 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.