What can we learn about posthumous sperm retrieval after extra long-term follow-up?
Fertility preservation
Male infertility
Posthumous sperm retrieval
Sperm banking
Journal
Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics
ISSN: 1573-7330
Titre abrégé: J Assist Reprod Genet
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9206495
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2022
Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
08
02
2022
accepted:
04
06
2022
pubmed:
12
6
2022
medline:
13
8
2022
entrez:
11
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To describe spermatozoa extraction rate by testicular sperm extraction (TESE) for posthumous sperm retrieval (PMSR) and examine harvest time impact on sperm motility; to compare long-term sperm usage between married vs. single deceased men. This retrospective study included all PMSR cases in Shamir Medical Center during 2003-2021. We evaluated sperm cryopreservation according to latency time after death. Then, we assessed sperm usage according to Israeli PMSR regulations. The study included 69 (35 married and 34 singles) deceased men with average age of 30.3 ± 7.8 years. Sperm was cryopreserved in 65 cases (94.2%) after maximum and average harvest time of 40 and 16.5 ± 8.1 h, respectively. Motile sperm extraction was associated with significantly shorter harvest time compared with non-motile sperm (13.8 ± 7.3 vs. 18.7 ± 8.1 h, p = 0.046). Sperm usage among married deceased was significantly higher than single (15.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.05). Disposal requests were lower among single compared to married men relatives without reaching statistical difference. Eventually, single men had significantly higher rate of non-used cryopreserved samples (93.8% vs 69.6%, p = 0.01). This large long-term cohort study demonstrates high efficacy of PMSR. We found significant harvest latency time difference between motile and non-motile preserved sperm. Clinical sperm usage rate justifies the efforts for PMSR among married deceased. However, contradicting policy on the topic of single men (which implies liberal sperm preservation but rigid prevention of usage) results with high non-used sperm rate and relatives' extremely sophisticated emotional burden.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35689734
doi: 10.1007/s10815-022-02535-8
pii: 10.1007/s10815-022-02535-8
pmc: PMC9365901
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1661-1665Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Hum Reprod. 2004 Sep;19(9):1952-6
pubmed: 15243009
Arab J Urol. 2021 Jul 06;19(3):247-254
pubmed: 34552776
Hum Reprod. 2005 Aug;20(8):2359-61
pubmed: 15831505
J Med Ethics. 2020 Jul;46(7):489-492
pubmed: 31959622
Fertil Steril. 2008 Dec;90(6):2245-50
pubmed: 18191846
J Urol. 2003 Nov;170(5):1922-5
pubmed: 14532808
J Androl. 2009 Jul-Aug;30(4):407-9
pubmed: 19168449
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008 Nov;141(1):39-43
pubmed: 18687516
Reprod Biomed Online. 2021 Oct;43(4):671-679
pubmed: 34474973
Hum Reprod. 2000 Apr;15(4):739-45
pubmed: 10739812
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Oct;52(5):487-90
pubmed: 22862141
Fertil Steril. 2011 Jun 30;95(8):2693-5
pubmed: 21620393
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2020 Jul;29(3):369-374
pubmed: 32484141
Fertil Steril. 2018 Jul 1;110(1):45-49
pubmed: 29908779
Fertil Steril. 1980 Nov;34(5):512
pubmed: 7439417
Fertil Steril. 2013 Sep;100(3):656-7
pubmed: 23756095
Fertil Steril. 2010 Aug;94(3):1154-6
pubmed: 19962140
Hum Reprod. 2001 Dec;16(12):2616-20
pubmed: 11726584
Hum Reprod. 2006 Nov;21(11):2890-3
pubmed: 16959804