ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2023
Comparison of unilateral and bilateral microdissection testicular sperm extraction (MD-TESE) in patients with non-obstructive azoospermia: a prospective study.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Revisiting non-obstructive azoospermia: Is there a best way to retrieve testicular sperm?Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare sperm retrieval rates between unilateral and bilateral microdissection testicular sperm extraction (MD-TESE) procedures in patients with non-obstructive azoospermia and to contribute to the literature by comparing them with literature data.
methodsThis prospective study included 84 males with primary infertility who had azoospermic NOA, who had been married for at least one year, and whose female partners did not have a history of infertility. The study was conducted between January 2019 and January 2020. MD-TESE was applied bilaterally to 48% (n:41) (Group 1) and unilaterally to 52% (n:43) (Group 2) of the patients, and sperm retrieval rates were compared.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference between Group 1 patients and Group 2 patients in terms of sperm availability (61%, 56.5%, p=0.495, respectively). In addition, while no complications were observed in unilateral MD-TESEs, 3 complications were observed in bilateral MD-TESEs.
conclusionsIn our study, it was determined that there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of sperm availability in patients with NOA. Considering the operative time and complication rates of bilateral MD-TESE in patients diagnosed with NOA and the possible MD-TESE procedures that may be performed later, we believe that unilateral MD TESE is a more preferable procedure for the patient and surgeon in this patient group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37330932What 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.