ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021
Microfluidic Systems for Isolation of Spermatozoa from Testicular Specimens of Non-Obstructive Azoospermic Men: Does/Can It Improve Sperm Yield?
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biological and clinical factors predicting sperm retrieval success in men with non-obstructive azoospermia.Reproduction & fertility · 2026Review
- Article
- Male Infertility: A Review of Key Papers Appearing in the Reproductive Medicine and Andrology Section of theJournal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- DNM3OS Enhances the Apoptosis and Senescence of Spermatogonia Associated with Nonobstructive Azoospermia by Providing miR-214-5p and Decreasing E2F2 Expression.Analytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam) · 2023Article
- Update on the Management of Non-Obstructive Azoospermia: Current Evidence and Unmet Needs.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Sperm Selection and Embryo Development: A Comparison of the Density Gradient Centrifugation and Microfluidic Chip Sperm Preparation Methods in Patients with Astheno-Teratozoospermia.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has allowed reproduction options through assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) for men with no spermatozoa within the ejaculate (azoospermia). In men with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA), the options for spermatozoa retrieval are testicular sperm extraction (TESE), testicular sperm aspiration (TESA), or micro-surgical sperm extraction (microTESE). At the initial time of spermatozoa removal from the testis, spermatozoa are immobile. Independent of the means of spermatozoa retrieval, the subsequent steps of removing spermatozoa from seminiferous tubules, determining spermatozoa viability, identifying enough spermatozoa for oocyte injections, and isolating viable spermatozoa for injection are currently performed manually by laboratory microscopic dissection and collection. These laboratory techniques are highly labor-intensive, with yield unknown, have an unpredictable efficiency and/or success rate, and are subject to inter-laboratory personnel and intra-laboratory variability. Here, we consider the potential utility, benefits, and shortcomings of developing technologies such as motility induction/stimulants, microfluidics, dielectrophoresis, and cell sorting as andrological laboratory add-ons to reduce the technical burdens and variabilities in viable spermatozoa isolation from testicular samples in men with NOA.
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.