ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2024
Testicular mapping-guided sperm retrieval
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Anti-Müllerian Hormone as a Biomarker for Predicting Testicular Sperm Extraction Outcomes in Azoospermic Patients: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Decoding the Puzzle of Male Infertility: The Role of Infection, Inflammation, and Autoimmunity.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Sperm extraction by Microscopic Testicular Sperm Extraction (microTESE) has become the standard of care for sperm retrieval (SR) in men with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) but is costly and has a 40-50% chance of failure. Fine needle aspiration mapping (FNAM) can be performed prior to microTESE as a predictor of success to reduce the likelihood of failure to retrieve sperm but there is limited evidence that directly compares these methods. The objective of this study was to compare success rate of SR, pregnancy, and live birth rates in men who underwent upfront microTESE versus FNAM. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of men with NOA over a 10-year period from 2010 to 2019. The primary outcome was success of SR with secondary outcomes of pregnancy, and live-birth rates. Results: Ninety men were included in the analysis. 60 in the FNAM group in 30 having upfront microTESE. In the FNAM group, 34/60 (56.7%) patients had positive fine needle aspiration (FNA) map for spermatogenesis. Of these 20/31 (64.5%) had FNAM-guided TESA/E, and 11/31 (35.5%) had microTESE. SR was successful in 30 of 31 men (96.8%). Overall SR rate was 54.4% and 56.7% in the FNAM group and upfront microTESE, respectively. There was no statistical difference in SR (P=0.65). The FNAM group had pregnancy and live-birth rates of 42.1% and 36.8%, respectively. The upfront microTESE group had pregnancy and live-birth rates of 36.7% each. χ Conclusions: FNAM carries high predictability and reliability in SR and can be performed prior to microTESE in NOA patients without change in fertility outcomes.
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.