ArticleBioMed research international2021
Comparison of the Effects of Different Testicular Sperm Extraction Methods on the Embryonic Development of Azoospermic Men in Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) Cycles: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in BioMed research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effects of different testicular sperm extraction methods on the embryonic development and clinical outcome of azoospermic men in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles have not been researched. Our goal was to evaluate the effect of different sperm retrieval methods used for patients with OA or NOA on the embryonic development and clinical outcomes during the ICSI cycles.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study. A total of 530 azoospermic patients who underwent 570 ICSI cycles met the study criteria. ICSI was performed using testicular sperm by TESA in 282 cycles (TESA group); ICSI with testicular sperm by mTESE was performed due to NOA in 90 cycles (mTESE group); ICSI with testicular sperm by MESA was performed in 198 cycles (MESA group). The embryonic development and clinical outcomes of the three groups were counted.
resultsThe general characteristics of the three groups were comparable. Our findings showed that the three groups were matched in terms of infertility durations and age. The mean age and the mean BMI of the female partners were similar in the three groups. Also, our findings showed there were no significant differences in the three groups regarding day 3 of the menstrual cycle FSH and days of stimulation. The research results showed that the total dose of FSH and E2 on the HCG administration day was also not statistically different in the three groups. The number of oocytes retrieved had no significant differences in the three groups. However, the number of 2PNs per cycle and the number of cleavages per cycle were higher in the MESA group than in the other two groups; the TESA group and mTESE group were similar. The number of good quality D3 embryos and the number of good quality D5 embryos were significantly decreased in the mTESE group as compared to the other two groups. Good quality D3 embryos and the rate of good quality D5 embryos in the mTESE group were lower than those in the other two groups. Moreover, the clinical pregnancy rates of the TESA group (50.71%) and the MESA group (51.52%) were similar, but both were much higher than that of the mTESE group (32.22%).
conclusionsThe mTESE provides a good clinical outcome for NOA patients with severe spermatogenic impairment, including the rate of good quality D3 embryos, the rate of good quality D5 embryos, and the clinical pregnancy rate. However, our data suggested that both the TESA and MESA groups had better embryonic development and clinical outcomes than the mTESE group.
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.