ReviewReproductive medicine and biology
Revisiting non-obstructive azoospermia: Is there a best way to retrieve testicular sperm?
Review in Reproductive medicine and biology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Semen Quality and DNA Fragmentation After Limited Testicular Sperm Extraction in Non-Azoospermic Men With ART Failure: A Retrospective Matched Cohort Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- NOA masquerading as OA: Rethinking the role of testis biopsy from an East Asian perspective.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2026Article
- Diagnostic algorithm in men suspected with nonobstructive azoospermia.Asian journal of andrology · 2025Review
- Revisiting non-obstructive azoospermia: Is there a best way to retrieve testicular sperm?Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
- Integrated Ultrasound Localization Microscopy and Multi-Omics for Mechanism-Driven Stratification of Azoospermia.American journal of men's healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Microdissection TESE has been considered the "gold standard" for retrieving testicular sperm in cases of non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) despite limited scientific support. Here we compare all aspects of microdissection TESE with testis fine needle aspiration mapping (FNA Mapping) and directed TESE procedures for men with NOA. Methods: We examine the history of testicular sperm extraction techniques and the rise of advanced technologies with a focus on microdissection TESE and FNA mapping. We summarize the published literature regarding the success rates, complications, and limitations of these two methods. Main Findings: As there are no randomized controlled trials, the best data come from the Cochrane Reviews, which include meta-analyses concluding that the simplest and safest methods of sperm retrieval should be chosen. Although microdissection TESE is popular, recent reports have questioned its value due to the significant hypogonadal consequences. Among alternative procedures, FNA Mapping is a viable and less invasive alternative to microdissection TESE in finding testicular sperm in NOA patients. Conclusion: Alternatives to microdissection TESE procedures such as FNA Mapping offer several advantages that include similar sperm retrieval success rates, but also less invasiveness and improved understanding of the pathophysiology of NOA.
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.