ReviewAsian journal of andrology2026
Intracytoplasmic spermatid injection in non-obstructive azoospermia: a review of current evidence and future directions.
Review in Asian journal of andrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) represents one of the most severe forms of male infertility, with spermatozoa retrieval only possible in about half of the cases. Spermatids can be identified in up to 30% of men with negative spermatozoa during testicular sperm extraction (TESE) procedure. Intracytoplasmic spermatid injection has been proposed for TESE-negative patients desiring biological parenthood. However, significant limitations jeopardize the clinical implementation of this technique. Key challenges include the accurate identification of viable spermatids and the need for artificial oocyte activation. These limitations contribute to lower fertilization, pregnancy, and live birth rates compared to conventional intracytoplasmic sperm injection using mature sperm. Additionally, the absence of rigorous randomized controlled trials and the predominance of low-quality and outdated underpinning studies have significantly jeopardized its clinical implementation. These concerns have led the Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine to consider the technique experimental. Recent advances in microscopy, improved tissue processing, and refined activation techniques have enhanced outcomes. Furthermore, while initial safety concerns about epigenetic modifications persist, follow-up studies of spermatid injection offspring have shown normal development. This review comprehensively explores current evidence regarding intracytoplasmic spermatid injection techniques, focusing on their utilization, efficacy, and safety in men with NOA. We also evaluate spermatid identification and retrieval methods, ethical considerations, technical limitations, and emerging technologies that could enhance 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.