Fresh Gametes Might Get Better Clinical Results than Cryopreserved Sperm or Oocytes for Nonobstructive Azoospermia Patients Underwent micro-TESE

Ping Liu

doi:10.31083/j.ceog4906128

Information
References
Contents

Download

[1]Schlegel PN. Testicular sperm extraction: microdissection improves sperm yield with minimal tissue excision. Human Reproduction. 1999; 14: 131–135.
- Google Scholar
[2]Hamada A, Esteves S, Agarwal A. A comprehensive review of genetics and genetic testing in azoospermia. Clinics. 2013; 68: 39–60.
- Google Scholar
[3]Anniballo R, Ubaldi F, Cobellis L, Sorrentino M, Rienzi L, Greco E, et al. Criteria predicting the absence of spermatozoa in the Sertoli cell-only syndrome can be used to improve success rates of sperm retrieval. Human Reproduction. 2000; 15: 2269–2277.
- Google Scholar
[4]Ramasamy R, Lin K, Gosden LV, Rosenwaks Z, Palermo GD, Schlegel PN. High serum FSH levels in men with nonobstructive azoospermia does not affect success of microdissection testicular sperm extraction. Fertility and Sterility. 2009; 92: 590–593.
- Google Scholar
[5]Kalsi J, Thum M, Muneer A, Abdullah H, Minhas S. In the era of micro-dissection sperm retrieval (m-TESE) is an isolated testicular biopsy necessary in the management of men with non-obstructive azoospermia? BJU International. 2012; 109: 418–424.
- Google Scholar
[6]Tsujimura A, Miyagawa Y, Takao T, Takada S, Koga M, Takeyama M, et al. Salvage microdissection testicular sperm extraction after failed conventional testicular sperm extraction in patients with nonobstructive azoospermia. The Journal of Urology. 2006; 175: 1446–1449; discussion 1449.
- Google Scholar
[7]Silber SJ, Van Steirteghem AC, Liu J, Nagy Z, Tournaye H, Devroey P. High fertilization and pregnancy rate after intracytoplasmic sperm injection with spermatozoa obtained from testicle biopsy. Human Reproduction. 1995; 10: 148–152.
- Google Scholar
[8]Schoysman R, Vanderzwalmen P, Nijs M, Segal L, Segal-Bertin G, Geerts L, et al. Pregnancy after fertilisation with human testicular spermatozoa. Lancet. 1993; 342: 1237.
- Google Scholar
[9]Lin H, Jiang H, Zhang H, Mao J, Liu D, Zhao L, et al. Clinical outcomes of microdissection testicular sperm extraction-intracytoplasmic sperm injection with fresh or cryopreserved sperm in patients with nonobstructive azoospermia. Asian Journal of Andrology. 2021; 23: 211.
- Google Scholar
[10]Chang C, Lin C, Sung L, Kort HI, Tian XC, Nagy ZP. Impact of phase transition on the mouse oocyte spindle during vitrification. Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2011; 22: 184–191.
- Google Scholar
[11]Gook DA, Osborn SM, Bourne H, Johnston WI. Fertilization of human oocytes following cryopreservation; normal karyotypes and absence of stray chromosomes. Human Reproduction. 1994; 9: 684–691.
- Google Scholar
[12]Gardner DK, Sheehan CB, Rienzi L, Katz-Jaffe M, Larman MG. Analysis of oocyte physiology to improve cryopreservation procedures. Theriogenology. 2007; 67: 64–72.
- Google Scholar
[13]Onofre J, Baert Y, Faes K, Goossens E. Cryopreservation of testicular tissue or testicular cell suspensions: a pivotal step in fertility preservation. Human Reproduction Update. 2016; 22: 744–761.
- Google Scholar
[14]Baert Y, Van Saen D, Haentjens P, In’t Veld P, Tournaye H, Goossens E. What is the best cryopreservation protocol for human testicular tissue banking? Human Reproduction. 2013; 28: 1816–1826.
- Google Scholar
[15]Hong K, Jiang H, Zhang H, Zhao L, Mao J, Liu D, et al. Sperm retrieval rates and clinical outcomes for patients with different causes of azoospermia who undergo microdissection testicular sperm extraction-intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Asian Journal of Andrology. 2021; 23: 59.
- Google Scholar
[16]An G, Zou Z, Flannigan R, Liu J, Du H, Fu X, et al. Outcome of Oocyte Vitrification Combined with Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction and Aspiration for Assisted Reproduction in Men. Medical Science Monitor. 2018; 24: 1379–1386.
- Google Scholar
[17]Gottardo F, Kliesch S. Semen analysis: spermiogram according to who 2010 criteria. Der Urologe. 2011; 50: 101–108. (In German)
- Google Scholar
[18]Dabaja AA, Schlegel PN. Microdissection testicular sperm extraction: an update. Asian Journal of Andrology. 2013; 15: 35–39.
- Google Scholar
[19]Tsujimura A, Matsumiya K, Miyagawa Y, Tohda A, Miura H, Nishimura K, et al. Conventional multiple or microdissection testicular sperm extraction: a comparative study. Human Reproduction. 2002; 17: 2924–2929.
- Google Scholar
[20]Ghalayini. Clinical Comparison of Conventional Testicular Sperm Extraction and Microdissection Techniques for Non-Obstructive Azoospermia. Journal of Clinical Medicine Research. 2011; 3: 124–131.
- Google Scholar
[21]Bernie AM, Ramasamy R, Schlegel PN. Predictive factors of successful microdissection testicular sperm extraction. Basic and Clinical Andrology. 2013; 23: 5.
- Google Scholar
[22]Moein MR, Moein MR, Ghasemzadeh J, Pourmasoumi S. Evaluation of sperm retrieval rate with bilateral testicular sperm extraction in infertile patients with azoospermia. Iranian Journal of Reproductive Medicine. 2015; 13: 711–714.
- Google Scholar
[23]Cetinkaya M, Onem K, Zorba OU, Ozkara H, Alici B. Evaluation of Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction Results in Patients with Non-Obstructive Azoospermia: Independent Predictive Factors and Best Cutoff Values for Sperm Retrieval. Urology Journal. 2015; 12: 2436–2443.
- Google Scholar
[24]Kopeika J, Thornhill A, Khalaf Y. The effect of cryopreservation on the genome of gametes and embryos: principles of cryobiology and critical appraisal of the evidence. Human Reproduction Update. 2015; 21: 209–227.
- Google Scholar
[25]Borini A, Levi Setti PE, Anserini P, De Luca R, De Santis L, Porcu E, et al. Multicenter observational study on slow-cooling oocyte cryopreservation: clinical outcome. Fertility and Sterility. 2010; 94: 1662–1668.
- Google Scholar
[26]Scaravelli G, Vigiliano V, Mayorga JM, Bolli S, De Luca R, D’Aloja P. Analysis of oocyte cryopreservation in assisted reproduction: the Italian National Register data from 2005 to 2007. Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2010; 21: 496–500.
- Google Scholar
[27]Bernardini L, Gianaroli L, Fortini D, Conte N, Magli C, Cavani S, et al. Frequency of hyper-, hypohaploidy and diploidy in ejaculate, epididymal and testicular germ cells of infertile patients. Human Reproduction. 2000; 15: 2165–2172.
- Google Scholar
[28]Rodrigo L, Rubio C, Peinado V, Villamón R, Al-Asmar N, Remohí J, et al. Testicular sperm from patients with obstructive and nonobstructive azoospermia: aneuploidy risk and reproductive prognosis using testicular sperm from fertile donors as control samples. Fertility and Sterility. 2011; 95: 1005–1012.
- Google Scholar
[29]Garcia JI, Noriega-Portella L, Noriega-Hoces L. Efficacy of oocyte vitrification combined with blastocyst stage transfer in an egg donation program. Human Reproduction. 2011; 26: 782–790.
- Google Scholar

Open Access 2 Jun 2022Original Research

Fresh Gametes Might Get Better Clinical Results than Cryopreserved Sperm or Oocytes for Nonobstructive Azoospermia Patients Underwent micro-TESE

Yapeng Wang ^1,2,3,4,†, Defeng Liu ^1,5,6,†, Xiulian Ren ^1,2,3,4, Shengli Lin ^1,2,3,4, Ming Li ^1,2,3,4, Hui Jiang ^1,5,6,*, Ping Liu ^1,2,3,4,*

Affiliations

Article Info

¹ Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, 100191 Beijing, China

² National Clinical Research Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, 100191 Beijing, China

³ Key Laboratory of Assisted Reproduction, Peking University, Ministry of Education, 100191 Beijing, China

⁴ Beijing Key Laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology and Assisted Reproductive Technology, 100191 Beijing, China

⁵ Department of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, 100191 Beijing, China

⁶ Department of Human Sperm Bank, Peking University Third Hospital, 100191 Beijing, China

^*Correspondence: bysylp@sina.com (Ping Liu); jianghui55@163.com (Hui Jiang)
^†These authors contributed equally.
Academic Editor: Johannes Ott

Abstract

Background: micro-testicular sperm extraction (TESE) has been the first choice for Nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA) patients for its higher sperm retrieval rate under microscope, meanwhile, sperm or oocyte cryopreservation are widely applied in in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. But few researches have systematically explored the effect of oocyte and sperm cryopreservation in one study. Methods: we retrospectively collected and analyzed the data of fertilization and pregnancy of patients who underwent micro-TESE using fresh or vitrified-warmed gametes in our center to assess the effect of gametes cryopreservation. Results: we compared the clinical results using fresh or vitrified-warmed gametes in NOA patients after micro-TESE, respectively. We found that the the rates of fertilization and good-quality embryo using fresh gametes were 52.37 $\pm$ 24.25% and 64.00 $\pm$ 36.18%, while these using vitrified sperm or oocyte were 46.00 $\pm$ 22.70% and 68.00 $\pm$ 34.6%, 45.51 $\pm$ 25.19% and 38.57 $\pm$ 31.08%, respectively; the rates of clinical pregancy and implantation using fresh gametes were 50.0% and 32.5%, while these using vitrified sperm or oocytes were 39.5% and 32.9%, 37.5% and 24.1%, respectively. The rates of good-quality embyo and clinical pregancy of the fresh gamete were above these of the vitrified, but there was no statistic difference. The live birth rate using fresh gamete was higher than that using the vitrified (47.1% verse 32.6%, 31.3%). Conclusions: The live birth rate using fresh gamete was higher than that using vitrified gametes. Fresh gametes showed better clinical outcomes than vitrified gametes in micro-TESE-ICSI treatment for NOA patients.

Keywords

nonobstructive azoospermia
micro-TESE
sperm cryopreservation
oocyte cryopreservation

1. Introduction

Nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA) refers to the complete absence of spermatozoa in ejaculate [1]. NOA accounts for 60% of azoospermia, which constitutes 10–15% of male infertility [2]. According to the etiology, NOA can be divided into 3 types: congenital, acquired and idiopathic [3]. Besides surgical sperm retrieval, few options are left for NOA patients.

Testicular sperm extraction (TESE) combined with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has been largely applied in NOA patients. Compared with conventional TESE (cTESE), micro-TESE has a higher sperm retrieval rate (SRR) and less tissue loss by the guide of microscope [4, 5]. It’s reported that the SRR of micro-TESE after a failed cTESE was 45.7% [6]. Traditionally, most patients with NOA were performed with ICSI using fresh sperm and oocytes to avoid gamete cryopreservation [7, 8]. But the practice is not always as good as we wish. Vitrified oocytes or sperm were often utilized in clinical practice. For example, the oocyte has to be cyropreserved at the oocyte retrieval day after a failed cTESE. Some cost-sensitive patients would like to process micro-TESE first in case of sperm retrieval failure. In these specific situations, gametes would be vitrified first and then used at last if micro-TESE performed successfully. Although many studies have suggested that the results of fertilization and pregnancy using vitrified-warmed gametes were similar with these using fresh gametes [9, 10, 11], the potential damage of the cryoprotectant and the freezing-thawing process were consistently concerned [12, 13, 14].

Many reports have investigated the effect of gametes cryopreservation on fertilization and pregnancy in micro-TESE. But all these reports analyzed the effect of sperm and oocyte cryopreservation separately [9, 15, 16]. To best of our knowledge, there is no research which systematically analyzes the effect of oocyte and sperm cryopreservation in one study. In this study, we analyzed the fertilization and pregnancy outcomes of micro-TESE patients using fresh or cryopreserved gametes to explore the effect of gamete cryopreservation on fertilization and pregnancy.

2. Material and Methods

2.1 Patients

We retrospectively collected and analyzed the data of 124 patients that had undergone micro-TESE in our center. The diagnosis of azoospermia was based on the World Health Organization guidelines [17] and was further determined after three semen tests. Male or female patients with chronic diseases including diabetes, hypertension, ankylosing spondylitis, nephropathy, etc. were all excluded. Female infertility such as endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), anovulation were excluded in our study. All these 124 patients had conducted 127 oocyte retrieval cycles, in which 3 patients had both fresh and cryopreserved sperm cycles. The patients were evaluated and classified into three groups: Group A (n = 68), patients with fresh oocytes and sperm; Group B (n = 43), patients with fresh oocytes and vitrified sperm; Group C (n = 16), patients with vitrified oocytes and fresh sperm. Most patients in Group C had cryopreserved oocytes for sperm acquisition failure by cTESE. All cycles in each group conducted a single stimulation. All the male patients with NOA were conducted with a physical examination. Female partners finished hormone assessment, including follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH) and testosterone. Our study was approved by the ethics committee of Peking University Third Hospital, and informed consent was provided.

2.2 micro-TESE, Sperm Cryopreservation and Warming

micro-TESE and sperm procession were performed just as Hong liang, Zhang et al. [9, 15] described before. Briefly, micro-TESE was performed under anesthesia, and the larger and white seminiferous tubules were identified and removed under the operating microscope (OPMI Vario, Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany). The tubules were immediately placed into G-MOPS-plus buffer (Vitrolife, Goteborg, Sweden) and then excised. The spermatozoa were examined by a microscope (TS100, Nikon, Tokyo, Japan). When at least one normal spermatozoa was identified, the sperm extraction operation would be considered successful. The retrieved sperm were collected for fertilization or vitrification. The cryopreservation of sperm was strictly followed the protocol of the sperm cryopreservation kit (Vitrolife). When warming, the straws which sperm vitrified in were directly placed into a 37 °C incubator for 10 min. And then the sperm was centrifuged for 10 min at 300 g twice. After centrifugation, the testicular pellet was reserved for ICSI.

2.3 Ooctye Retrieval and Vitrification

Oocytes were retrieved under the guidance of vaginal ultrasound 36 hours later after human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) administration. After 2 hours’ incubation, the cumulus cells were removed and MII oocytes were collected for ICSI or vitrification. The oocyte vitrification and warming were performed with the kit (Kitazato Biophama, Fuji, Japan). Warming was implemented 2 hours before ICSI, and then the injected oocytes were maintained at 37 °C (6% CO ${}_{2}$ and 5% O ${}_{2}$ ) for fertilization and development.

2.4 ICSI, Embryo Culture and Transplantation

Procedures of ICSI and embryo culture were just like described before [9, 15]. Only licensed and practiced embryologist could perform ICSI using sperms retrieved by micro-TESE. The number of transferred embryos was decided according to the embryo morphology and the patient’s pathography. For example, women after cesarean section would be only transferred with one embryo. Only good-quality embryo would be selected for transfer, and the definition of good-quality embryo was that the embryos consisted at least 5 blastomeres at Day 3. All the patients would be transferred with no more than two embryos to reduce the risk of multiple pregnancies.

2.5 Statistical Analysis

All data were collected and analyzed by Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 18 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The data were adjusted by SPSS 18. The Chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess the results of different groups, and p $<$ 0.01 was considered statistic difference.

3. Results

Totally, 127 cycles using sperm retrieved by micro-TESE were analyzed. Due to the gametes whether or not cryopreserved, we divided these patients into three groups. The characteristics of these patients were shown in Table 1, including age, body mass index (BMI), duration of infertility and female serum hormonal levels of FSH, LH, and T. No statistical difference was found among these three groups (p $>$ 0.01).

Table 1.Characteristics of Group A, Group B and Group C.

Characteristics		Group A	Group B	Group C
Age (year)
	Male	29.91 $\pm$ 5.23	30.37 $\pm$ 4.47	30.63 $\pm$ 2.60
	Female	28.16 $\pm$ 4.27	29.19 $\pm$ 4.15	30.56 $\pm$ 2.58
Duration of infertility (year)		3.73 $\pm$ 3.12	3.58 $\pm$ 2.86	3.42 $\pm$ 2.31
BMI (kg/m ${}^{2}$ )
	Male	24.50 $\pm$ 3.43	25.38 $\pm$ 3.12	25.97 $\pm$ 3.51
	female	22.37 $\pm$ 3.40	23.08 $\pm$ 4.38	21.25 $\pm$ 2.74
FSH (mIU/mL)		5.47 $\pm$ 2.71	5.27 $\pm$ 2.73	5.45 $\pm$ 2.32
LH (mIU/mL)		3.25 $\pm$ 1.95	2.56 $\pm$ 1.67	3.26 $\pm$ 1.49
T (mIU/mL)		0.79 $\pm$ 0.04	0.80 $\pm$ 0.22	0.70 $\pm$ 0.01
Date are presented as mean $\pm$ s.d.. Group A: fresh oocytes and fresh sperm; Group B: fresh oocytes and cryopreserved sperm; Group C: cryopreserved oocytes and fresh sperm. BMI, body mass index; FSH, follicle-stimulating hormone; LH, luteinizing hormone; T, testosterone; s.d., standard deviation.

Results of Oocyte maturation and embryo development were shown in Table 2. The fertilization rate of Group A was 52.37 $\pm$ 24.25%, and Group B 46.00 $\pm$ 22.70%, Group C 45.51 $\pm$ 25.19%. The good-quality embryo rate of Group C (38.57 $\pm$ 31.08%) got behind with the others (Group A = 64.00 $\pm$ 36.18%, Group B = 68.00 $\pm$ 34.60%), but there was no statistic difference.

Table 2.Embyonic development in Group A, Group B and Group C.

Parameters	Group A	Group B	Group C
cycles	68	43	16
Oocytes (n)	11.57 $\pm$ 4.81	11.79 $\pm$ 5.11	11.63 $\pm$ 6.45
MII oocytes (n)	9.62 $\pm$ 4.11	9.58 $\pm$ 4.47	8.69 $\pm$ 5.25
Fertilization Rate (%)	52.37 $\pm$ 24.25	46.00 $\pm$ 22.70	45.51 $\pm$ 25.19
Transferred embryos (n)	1.81 $\pm$ 0.40	1.77 $\pm$ 0.43	1.81 $\pm$ 0.40
Good quality embryo rate (%)	64.00 $\pm$ 36.18	68.00 $\pm$ 34.60	38.57 $\pm$ 31.08
Date are presented as mean $\pm$ s.d.. Group A: fresh oocytes and fresh sperm; Group B: fresh oocytes and cryopreserved sperm; Group C: cryopreserved oocytes and fresh sperm. MII oocytes, metaphase II oocytes; s.d., standard deviation.

The outcomes of embryo transplantation were presented in Table 3. The live birth rate of Group A, Group B and Group C was 47.1%, 32.6% and 31.3% respectively, and Group A was higher than Group B and C. There was no statistic difference in clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate among these groups.

Table 3.Pregnancy outcomes of Group A, Group B and Group C.

	Group A	Group B	Group C
cycles	68	43	16
Clinical pregnancy rate (%, n/total)	50.0 (34/68)	39.5 (17/43)	37.5 (6/16)
Implantation rate (%, n/total)	32.5 (40/123)	32.9 (25/76)	24.1 (7/29)
Live birth rate (%, n/total)	47.1 (32/68) ${}^{a}$	32.6 (14/43) ${}^{b}$	31.3 (5/16) ${}^{b}$
Miscarriage rate (%, n/total)	6.0 (2/34)	17.6 (3/17)	16.7 (1/6)
Date are presented as mean $\pm$ s.d. Group A: fresh oocytes and fresh sperm; Group B: fresh oocytes and cryopreserved sperm; Group C: cryopreserved oocytes and fresh sperm. ${}^{ab}$ Different character means statistic difference (p $<$ 0.01). s.d., standard deviation.

4. Discussion

micro-TESE has been strongly recommended to NOA patients for its higher sperm retrieval rates compared with conventional TESE, since its better identification of seminiferous tubules under microsope [18, 19]. It’s reported that the SRR of micro-TESE was about 40%–60% [20, 21], which indicated that almost half of the patients were failed after surgical treatment. In practice, oocyte and sperm cryopreservation have been applied in micro-TESE-ICSI treatment. Many reports have explored the effect of gamete cryopreservation on fertilization and pregnancy respectively, but no study has assessed that systematically in one study. To best of our knowledge, we for the first time analyzed the fertilization and pregnancy outcomes using cryopreserved sperm or oocytes after micro-TESE together and found that fresh gamete might get better clinical results than the cryopreserved.

Patient characteristics, such as age, BMI and hormone levels, showed no difference among these three groups. We also collected and analyzed the results of embryo development and pregnancy, and then observed similar oocyte maturation and fertilization rate. But the rate of good-quality embryo using fresh or vitrified sperm were above that using vitrified oocytes (64.00 $\pm$ 36.18%, 68.00 $\pm$ 34.60% verse 38.57 $\pm$ 31.08%) and the rates of clinical pregnancy and implantation using fresh gametes were also above these using vitrified sperm or oocytes (50% and 32.5% verse 39.5% and 32.9%, 37.5% and 24.1%, respectively) (Table 2), although there was no significant difference, and the Group A which used fresh gametes got higher live birth rate (47.1% verse 32.6%, 31.3%) (Table 3). All these results were consistent with the previous researches by our colleagues [9, 15]. Our results also confirmed that gametes cryopreservation in micro-TESE-ET treatment was feasible and reliable, for it can reduce the frequency of testicular biopsies, and can get similar fertilization and pregnancy rate [9, 16, 22, 23]. But these data also suggested that fresh gametes might be the first choice in micro-TESE-ICIS-ET treatment for NOA patients if possible. This can be partly explained by these three reasons: First, in practice we found that it’s hard to select the motile sperm after cryopreservation-warming procedure, especially for the NOA patients treated after micro-TESE; Second, cryopreservation might increase the sperm DNA single-strand breaks and the degree of DNA condensation or fragmentation, but its effects on oocyte was not clear for limited research [24]. A cohort study in Italian with multi-center and large observations showed that the implantation and pregnancy rates of the vitrified oocytes were lower than these of the fresh [25, 26]; Third, testicular sperm especially from NOA patients might have higher ratios of cytogenetic abnormal and chromosomal abnormalities [1, 27, 28]. However, the pregnancy results of our research showed no statistic difference between these three groups, which indicated that the vitrified gamete was at least not worse than the fresh for NOA patients. Plenty of researches showed similar pregnancy results using vitrified gametes compared with the fresh [9, 16, 22, 29]. In fact, gamete vitrifiication provides patients with more choices and less cost in medical practice. For example, female could start ovulation stimulation until sperm retrieved successfully after micro-TESE. Ooctye could be cryopreserved to avoid waste when conventional TESE failed before micro-TESE.

Since the sample size of our research was relatively small, a larger sample size and multi-center prospective cohort study would be needed in future to illustrate the effect of gamete cryopreservation. We also ask for a long-term (even past-generation) follow-up plan to investigate the effect of gamete cryopreservation.

5. Conclusions

We collected and compared the fertilization and pregnancy results between fresh and vitrified gametes in NOA patients after micro-TESE-ISCI-ET treatments. The rates of good-quality embryo using fresh or vitrified sperm were above that using vitrified oocytes, but there was no statistic difference, and the fresh gamete had higher live birth rate than the vitrified. Fresh gamete showed better clinical outcomes. These results suggested that we should consider using fresh gamete for fertilization in micro-TESE-ICSI treatment for NOA patients if possible. A larger sample size and long-time follow-up study is needed in the future.

Author Contributions

HJ and PL conceived and designed this study. XLR, SLL, and ML collected the date. YPW and DFL analyzed the date and drafted the article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. Our study was approved by the ethics committee of Peking University Third Hospital (No. 2020SZ-003), and informed consent was provided.

Acknowledgment

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program [2018YFC1002106], the National Natural Science Foundation of China for Young Scholars [81601275] and the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission [Grant no. Z191100006619076].

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

[1] Schlegel PN. Testicular sperm extraction: microdissection improves sperm yield with minimal tissue excision. Human Reproduction. 1999; 14: 131–135.
Cited within: 2Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[2] Hamada A, Esteves S, Agarwal A. A comprehensive review of genetics and genetic testing in azoospermia. Clinics. 2013; 68: 39–60.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar Crossref
[3] Anniballo R, Ubaldi F, Cobellis L, Sorrentino M, Rienzi L, Greco E, et al. Criteria predicting the absence of spermatozoa in the Sertoli cell-only syndrome can be used to improve success rates of sperm retrieval. Human Reproduction. 2000; 15: 2269–2277.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[4] Ramasamy R, Lin K, Gosden LV, Rosenwaks Z, Palermo GD, Schlegel PN. High serum FSH levels in men with nonobstructive azoospermia does not affect success of microdissection testicular sperm extraction. Fertility and Sterility. 2009; 92: 590–593.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[5] Kalsi J, Thum M, Muneer A, Abdullah H, Minhas S. In the era of micro-dissection sperm retrieval (m-TESE) is an isolated testicular biopsy necessary in the management of men with non-obstructive azoospermia? BJU International. 2012; 109: 418–424.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[6] Tsujimura A, Miyagawa Y, Takao T, Takada S, Koga M, Takeyama M, et al. Salvage microdissection testicular sperm extraction after failed conventional testicular sperm extraction in patients with nonobstructive azoospermia. The Journal of Urology. 2006; 175: 1446–1449; discussion 1449.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[7] Silber SJ, Van Steirteghem AC, Liu J, Nagy Z, Tournaye H, Devroey P. High fertilization and pregnancy rate after intracytoplasmic sperm injection with spermatozoa obtained from testicle biopsy. Human Reproduction. 1995; 10: 148–152.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[8] Schoysman R, Vanderzwalmen P, Nijs M, Segal L, Segal-Bertin G, Geerts L, et al. Pregnancy after fertilisation with human testicular spermatozoa. Lancet. 1993; 342: 1237.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[9] Lin H, Jiang H, Zhang H, Mao J, Liu D, Zhao L, et al. Clinical outcomes of microdissection testicular sperm extraction-intracytoplasmic sperm injection with fresh or cryopreserved sperm in patients with nonobstructive azoospermia. Asian Journal of Andrology. 2021; 23: 211.
Cited within: 7Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[10] Chang C, Lin C, Sung L, Kort HI, Tian XC, Nagy ZP. Impact of phase transition on the mouse oocyte spindle during vitrification. Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2011; 22: 184–191.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[11] Gook DA, Osborn SM, Bourne H, Johnston WI. Fertilization of human oocytes following cryopreservation; normal karyotypes and absence of stray chromosomes. Human Reproduction. 1994; 9: 684–691.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[12] Gardner DK, Sheehan CB, Rienzi L, Katz-Jaffe M, Larman MG. Analysis of oocyte physiology to improve cryopreservation procedures. Theriogenology. 2007; 67: 64–72.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[13] Onofre J, Baert Y, Faes K, Goossens E. Cryopreservation of testicular tissue or testicular cell suspensions: a pivotal step in fertility preservation. Human Reproduction Update. 2016; 22: 744–761.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[14] Baert Y, Van Saen D, Haentjens P, In’t Veld P, Tournaye H, Goossens E. What is the best cryopreservation protocol for human testicular tissue banking? Human Reproduction. 2013; 28: 1816–1826.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[15] Hong K, Jiang H, Zhang H, Zhao L, Mao J, Liu D, et al. Sperm retrieval rates and clinical outcomes for patients with different causes of azoospermia who undergo microdissection testicular sperm extraction-intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Asian Journal of Andrology. 2021; 23: 59.
Cited within: 4Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[16] An G, Zou Z, Flannigan R, Liu J, Du H, Fu X, et al. Outcome of Oocyte Vitrification Combined with Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction and Aspiration for Assisted Reproduction in Men. Medical Science Monitor. 2018; 24: 1379–1386.
Cited within: 3Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[17] Gottardo F, Kliesch S. Semen analysis: spermiogram according to who 2010 criteria. Der Urologe. 2011; 50: 101–108. (In German)
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[18] Dabaja AA, Schlegel PN. Microdissection testicular sperm extraction: an update. Asian Journal of Andrology. 2013; 15: 35–39.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[19] Tsujimura A, Matsumiya K, Miyagawa Y, Tohda A, Miura H, Nishimura K, et al. Conventional multiple or microdissection testicular sperm extraction: a comparative study. Human Reproduction. 2002; 17: 2924–2929.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[20] Ghalayini. Clinical Comparison of Conventional Testicular Sperm Extraction and Microdissection Techniques for Non-Obstructive Azoospermia. Journal of Clinical Medicine Research. 2011; 3: 124–131.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[21] Bernie AM, Ramasamy R, Schlegel PN. Predictive factors of successful microdissection testicular sperm extraction. Basic and Clinical Andrology. 2013; 23: 5.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[22] Moein MR, Moein MR, Ghasemzadeh J, Pourmasoumi S. Evaluation of sperm retrieval rate with bilateral testicular sperm extraction in infertile patients with azoospermia. Iranian Journal of Reproductive Medicine. 2015; 13: 711–714.
Cited within: 2Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[23] Cetinkaya M, Onem K, Zorba OU, Ozkara H, Alici B. Evaluation of Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction Results in Patients with Non-Obstructive Azoospermia: Independent Predictive Factors and Best Cutoff Values for Sperm Retrieval. Urology Journal. 2015; 12: 2436–2443.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[24] Kopeika J, Thornhill A, Khalaf Y. The effect of cryopreservation on the genome of gametes and embryos: principles of cryobiology and critical appraisal of the evidence. Human Reproduction Update. 2015; 21: 209–227.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[25] Borini A, Levi Setti PE, Anserini P, De Luca R, De Santis L, Porcu E, et al. Multicenter observational study on slow-cooling oocyte cryopreservation: clinical outcome. Fertility and Sterility. 2010; 94: 1662–1668.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[26] Scaravelli G, Vigiliano V, Mayorga JM, Bolli S, De Luca R, D’Aloja P. Analysis of oocyte cryopreservation in assisted reproduction: the Italian National Register data from 2005 to 2007. Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2010; 21: 496–500.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[27] Bernardini L, Gianaroli L, Fortini D, Conte N, Magli C, Cavani S, et al. Frequency of hyper-, hypohaploidy and diploidy in ejaculate, epididymal and testicular germ cells of infertile patients. Human Reproduction. 2000; 15: 2165–2172.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[28] Rodrigo L, Rubio C, Peinado V, Villamón R, Al-Asmar N, Remohí J, et al. Testicular sperm from patients with obstructive and nonobstructive azoospermia: aneuploidy risk and reproductive prognosis using testicular sperm from fertile donors as control samples. Fertility and Sterility. 2011; 95: 1005–1012.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar PubMed Crossref
[29] Garcia JI, Noriega-Portella L, Noriega-Hoces L. Efficacy of oocyte vitrification combined with blastocyst stage transfer in an egg donation program. Human Reproduction. 2011; 26: 782–790.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar Crossref

Download

Article Metrics

Download

Abstract

Keywords

References