ArticleNagoya journal of medical science2020
Microsurgical seminal reconstruction; our experiences in a single institute.
Article in Nagoya journal of medical science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We assessed the contribution of microsurgical seminal reconstruction to achieving natural conception in conjunction with advanced assisted reproductive technologies. Ninety obstructive azoospermic subjects who underwent microsurgical seminal reconstruction were evaluated. Vasovasostomy (VV) was undertaken in 45 subjects whereas vasoepididymostomy (VE) in 45, respectively. VV was performed by employing a two microlayer anastomotic technique, whilst VE was undertaken using double needle longitudinal vaspepididymostomy (LIVE). Patency was achieved in 41 VV (91.1%), and 25 VE (55.6%) cases. In cases where patency was achieved, pregnancy and healthy delivery were recorded following natural intercourse in 7/41 (17.0%) VV, and in 7/25 (28.0%) VE cases. Where patency was not achieved, the use of cryopreserved sperm for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), resulted in a healthy delivery in 4/4 (100%) VV and 14/21 (66.6%) in VE subjects. Although natural pregnancy was achieved only in a limited number of subjects treated (14/90; 15.6%), sperm harvested during surgery and cryopreserved for future ICSI use proved valuable, doubling the overall delivery rate (32/90; 36.6%). Surgical intervention is considered to be a useful technique in order to allow the possibility of a natural conception and by harvesting sperm at the same time contributes to the cost-effectiveness.
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.