ArticleJournal of men's health2024
Methods and Efficacy of Processing Testicular Sperm Samples in Obstructive and Non-Obstructive Azoospermia: A Systematic Review.
Article in Journal of men's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of the timing of testicular sperm retrieval on intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes.Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine · 2026Article
- A Narrative Review on the Sperm Selection Methods in Assisted Reproductive Technology: Out with the New, the Old Is Better?Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is a cornerstone in managing male infertility, especially in obstructive azoospermia (OA) and non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA), necessitating sperm retrieval via testicular sperm extraction (TESE) or microdissection TESE (mTESE). However, the varied post-sperm extraction processing methods pose uncertainty regarding optimal approaches. To address this, a systematic review following preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines was conducted, identifying 16 relevant studies. These studies exhibited significant heterogeneity in methodologies and outcomes, with mechanical preparation and enzymatic digestion being the primary techniques investigated. Mechanical methods, including shredding, mincing, vortexing, and crushing, yielded varying sperm counts per 100 mg of tissue, with mincing showing promise in NOA cases. Enzymatic digestion, particularly with collagenase type IV, also showed effectiveness, though inconsistently. Additionally, techniques such as microfluidics and magnetic levitation showed potential for improving sperm retrieval efficiency. However, the lack of standardization in outcomes and reporting impedes the establishment of best practice protocols. While collagenase type IV with elastase seemed promising for OA samples and microfluidics for NOA cases, further studies with standardized methodologies and outcomes are necessary. Assessment of DNA damage and comparisons of ICSI success rates between processing methods are crucial for informed clinical practice. In conclusion, optimizing sperm quantity and quality for ICSI necessitates standardized methodologies and outcomes, with microfluidics and collagenase type IV with elastase showing promise pending further validation through well-designed studies.
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.