ReviewAsian journal of andrology2025
Fresh versus frozen micro-TESE sperm and outcomes.
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 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.
- Fresh versus frozen-thawed testicular sperm for intracytoplasmic sperm injection in men with non-obstructive azoospermia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- Intraoperative epididymal sperm cryopreservation during microsurgical vasoepididymostomy for obstructive azoospermia: intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes from a single-center cohort.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Sperm Retrieval in Non-Azoospermic Patients with Intact Ejaculation: A Narrative Review.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2026Article
- Self-esteem in crisis: Psychosocial adaptation and masculine identity among Chinese men with azoospermia.PloS one · 2026Article
- Management of non-obstructive azoospermia: advances, challenges, and expert recommendations.Asian journal of andrology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractThe use of fresh versus frozen spermatozoa in men with nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA) undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) has been a debated hot topic among reproductive specialists. Each approach presents distinct advantages and disadvantages, with fresh sperm typically showing superior sperm quality, while frozen sperm offers logistical flexibility and a reliable backup for repeated cycles. This review summarizes the latest advancements in sperm retrieval and cryopreservation techniques, providing practitioners with a comprehensive analysis of each option's strengths and limitations. Comparative studies indicate that, although fresh sperm often has better quality metrics, cryopreservation methods such as vitrification have significantly improved postthaw outcomes, making frozen sperm a viable choice in assisted reproductive technologies (ART). The findings show comparable rates for fertilization, implantation, clinical pregnancy, and live birth between fresh and frozen microdissection testicular sperm extraction (micro-TESE) sperm in many cases, although patient-specific factors such as timing, cost-effectiveness, and procedural convenience should guide the final decision. Ultimately, the choice of using fresh or frozen sperm should align with the individual needs and conditions of patients. This tailored approach, supported by the latest advancements, can optimize ART outcomes and provide personalized reproductive care.
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.