ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026
Combining microTESE and trifocal TESE improves sperm retrieval and cryopreservation outcomes in nonobstructive azoospermia.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2026. 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.
- Non-Coding RNA Biomarkers in Male Infertility: From Discovery to Clinical Actionability-A Narrative Review.Genes · 2026Review
- Biological and clinical factors predicting sperm retrieval success in men with non-obstructive azoospermia.Reproduction & fertility · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether combining microdissection testicular sperm extraction (microTESE) with trifocal testicular sperm extraction (TESE) in a single session improves sperm retrieval and cryopreservation outcomes in men with nonobstructive azoospermia. MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective cohort study of 93 men with nonobstructive azoospermia (out of 176 consecutive men with azoospermia) who underwent both microTESE and trifocal TESE sequentially during the same procedure was analyzed. Specimens from each technique were processed and analyzed separately to enable within-patient comparison. Sperm retrieval rates, quantitative sperm yield, and cryopreserved vials were measured. Histopathological patterns were classified. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsSperm retrieval was successful in 59 of 93 patients, resulting in an overall retrieval rate of 63.4%. When analyzed separately, spermatozoa were identified in microTESE specimens from 54 patients (58.1%) and in trifocal TESE specimens from 51 patients (54.8%). The combined approach (analyzing all specimens from both techniques) achieved a significantly higher retrieval rate (63.4%) than either technique analyzed alone (p = 0.041 vs. microTESE; p = 0.002 vs. trifocal TESE). In seven patients (7.5%), sperm were found exclusively in microTESE specimens, and in three patients (3.2%), exclusively in trifocal specimens. Quantitative sperm yield was also higher with the combined approach (mean ± SD: 9.9 ± 5.1 sperm units) than with either microTESE (3.9 ± 3.2) or trifocal TESE (6.0 ± 3.4) specimens alone (p < 0.001). This resulted in more cryopreserved vials (12.4 ± 2.4 vs. 5.9 ± 1.2, p < 0.001), enabling greater fertility preservation potential. Histopathological analysis revealed a mixed atrophy pattern in all successful retrievals, supporting the biological rationale for combining targeted and systematic sampling in patients with focal spermatogenesis.
conclusionA dual technique approach combining microTESE and trifocal TESE significantly improves sperm retrieval rates and cryopreservation outcomes in nonobstructive azoospermia compared to either technique alone. This strategy maximizes fertility preservation and may reduce the need for repeat testicular procedures.
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.