SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2023
The pregnancy outcomes in patients with epididymal obstructive azoospermia after microsurgical vasoepididymostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraoperative epididymal sperm cryopreservation during microsurgical vasoepididymostomy for obstructive azoospermia: intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes from a single-center cohort.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Long-term pregnancy outcomes after deferential vessel‑sparing microsurgical vasoepididymostomy.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Modifiable predictors of patency after microsurgical vasoepididymostomy: associations of adjunctive escin, prior percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration, and postoperative ejaculatory frequency.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- The Impact of Congenital Anomalies of the Male and Female Reproductive Organs on Infertility and Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: A Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Pregnancy outcomes (overall patency rate, overall pregnancy rate, natural pregnancy rate, and the ratio of patients with pregnancy by assisted reproductive technology) after microsurgical vasoepididymostomy (MVE) in patients with epididymal obstructive azoospermia (EOA) were assessed through meta-analysis. Method: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases up to 28 September 2022 for published literature related to retrospective or prospective clinical studies of obstructive azoospermia after apparent microsurgical vasoepididymostomy. Our search terms included obstructive azoospermia, epididymis obstruction, epididymal obstruction and vasoepididymostomy, and epididymovasostomy. Two researchers independently performed the literature search and assessed the eligibility of selected studies according to established inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. Result: A total of 504 patients with EOA were included in 10 studies (including 2 prospective clinical studies and 8 retrospective clinical studies). The mean patency rate after MVE was 72% (95% Conclusion: Vasectomy patency rates are higher, but natural pregnancy rates are lower in EOA male infertility patients after MVE. Altering the MVE procedures alone does not significantly improve pregnancy outcomes, but ART after MVE could improve the chance of pregnancy regardless of sperm parameters. We recommended that human sperms from EOA male infertility patients should be cryopreserved during intraoperative MVE for application in the subsequent ICSI treatment procedure.
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.