ReviewAsian journal of andrology2025
Second chance in fertility: a comprehensive narrative review of redo micro-TESE outcomes after initial failure.
Review in Asian journal of andrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management of non-obstructive azoospermia: advances, challenges, and expert recommendations.Asian journal of andrology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic algorithm in men suspected with nonobstructive azoospermia.Asian journal of andrology · 2025Review
- Preliminary Results of Microsurgical Sperm Retrieval in Azoospermic Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Operating Microscope vs. Surgical Loupes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractWhen microdissection testicular sperm extraction (micro-TESE) fails, a redo procedure may be the only option for patients who want a biological child. However, there are many gaps of knowledge surrounding the procedure, which need to be addressed to help clinicians and patients make informed decisions. This review explores redo micro-TESE in the context of nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA). Literature was searched using Google Scholar, Medline, and PubMed. Search terms were "NOA" AND "second microdissection testicular sperm extractions" AND "redo microdissection testicles sperm extraction" AND "repeat microdissection testicular sperm extractions" AND "failed microdissection testicular sperm extractions" AND "salvage microdissection testicular sperm extractions". Only original articles in English were included. A total of nine articles were included, consisting of four retrospective and five prospective studies. The time gap between the first and second micro-TESE varied from 6 months to 24 months. Most of the included studies reported successful surgical sperm retrieval (SSR) in the second micro-TESE in the range of 10%-21%, except in one study where it reached 42%. It has not been presented any definitive information about the use of hormonal treatment or the benefit of varicocelectomy prior to the second micro-TESE. Patients with hypospermatogenesis and Klinefelter syndrome (KS) had the highest chance of success in redo surgery. In conclusion, redo micro-TESE following a negative procedure can lead to sperm recovery in 10%-21%. Patients with hypospermatogenesis and KS have a higher chance of success. There is no enough evidence to conclude which is the best hormonal stimulation if any before a redo surgery.
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.