Evaluating the Predictive Value of Diagnostic Testicular Biopsy for Sperm Retrieval Outcomes in Men with Non-Obstructive Azoospermia.

diagnostic testicular biopsy microdissection testicular sperm extraction non-obstructive azoospermia sperm retrieval therapeutic testicular biopsy

Journal

Journal of personalized medicine
ISSN: 2075-4426
Titre abrégé: J Pers Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101602269

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 Sep 2023
Historique:
received: 09 08 2023
revised: 27 08 2023
accepted: 04 09 2023
medline: 28 9 2023
pubmed: 28 9 2023
entrez: 28 9 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) presents a challenge in male infertility management. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of diagnostic testicular biopsy (DTB) in predicting sperm retrieval success via therapeutic testicular biopsy (TTB) and to understand the role of systemic inflammation in microdissection testicular sperm extraction (mTESE) outcomes. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 50 NOA males who underwent mTESE at the University of Ioannina's Department of Urology from January 2017 to December 2019. All participants underwent thorough medical evaluations, including semen analyses and endocrinological assessments. DTB did not detect spermatozoa in half of the patients who later showed positive sperm findings in TTB. Preoperative variables, such as age, plasma levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), total testosterone (TT), prolactin (PRL), estradiol (E2), and inflammation biomarkers (neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), monocyte-eosinophil ratio (MER)), were not consistently predictive of sperm retrieval success. Notably, TTB-negative patients had elevated NLR and PLR values, suggesting a possible link between systemic inflammation and reduced sperm retrieval during mTESE. The findings question the necessity of an initial DTB, which might provide misleading results. A negative DTB should not deter further TTB or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) attempts. The study emphasizes the need for further research to refine diagnostic approaches and deepen the understanding of factors influencing sperm retrieval in NOA patients, ultimately enhancing their prospects of biological parenthood.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) presents a challenge in male infertility management. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of diagnostic testicular biopsy (DTB) in predicting sperm retrieval success via therapeutic testicular biopsy (TTB) and to understand the role of systemic inflammation in microdissection testicular sperm extraction (mTESE) outcomes.
METHODS METHODS
A retrospective analysis was conducted on 50 NOA males who underwent mTESE at the University of Ioannina's Department of Urology from January 2017 to December 2019. All participants underwent thorough medical evaluations, including semen analyses and endocrinological assessments.
RESULTS RESULTS
DTB did not detect spermatozoa in half of the patients who later showed positive sperm findings in TTB. Preoperative variables, such as age, plasma levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), total testosterone (TT), prolactin (PRL), estradiol (E2), and inflammation biomarkers (neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), monocyte-eosinophil ratio (MER)), were not consistently predictive of sperm retrieval success. Notably, TTB-negative patients had elevated NLR and PLR values, suggesting a possible link between systemic inflammation and reduced sperm retrieval during mTESE.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The findings question the necessity of an initial DTB, which might provide misleading results. A negative DTB should not deter further TTB or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) attempts. The study emphasizes the need for further research to refine diagnostic approaches and deepen the understanding of factors influencing sperm retrieval in NOA patients, ultimately enhancing their prospects of biological parenthood.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37763130
pii: jpm13091362
doi: 10.3390/jpm13091362
pmc: PMC10532560
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

Asian J Androl. 2013 Jan;15(1):35-9
pubmed: 23241638
BJU Int. 2013 Jul;112(2):258-64
pubmed: 23356885
Hum Reprod. 1999 Dec;14(12):3041-7
pubmed: 10601094
Andrology. 2015 Sep;3(5):868-75
pubmed: 26235799
Hum Reprod Update. 1998 May-Jun;4(3):197-212
pubmed: 9741705
Andrology. 2017 Nov;5(6):1100-1104
pubmed: 28992369
J Clin Med. 2022 Aug 06;11(15):
pubmed: 35956208
Hum Reprod. 1995 Jun;10(6):1457-60
pubmed: 7593514
Spermatogenesis. 2014 Mar 31;4:e28218
pubmed: 25105055
Fertil Steril. 1996 Jan;65(1):176-85
pubmed: 8557137
Asian J Androl. 2015 Jul-Aug;17(4):659-67
pubmed: 25926610
Lancet. 1992 Jul 4;340(8810):17-8
pubmed: 1351601
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2013;68 Suppl 1:15-26
pubmed: 23503951
Hum Reprod. 1998 Oct;13(1O):2791-6
pubmed: 9804232
Front Reprod Health. 2022 Apr 04;4:811487
pubmed: 36303681
Fertil Steril. 2019 May;111(5):873-880
pubmed: 31029241
Lancet. 1998 Apr 18;351(9110):1177-8
pubmed: 9643694
Asian J Androl. 2012 Jan;14(1):88-93
pubmed: 22157985
Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2018 Feb;34(2):103-108
pubmed: 29413225
Arch Androl. 2005 Mar-Apr;51(2):159-64
pubmed: 15804871
Asian J Androl. 2020 Nov-Dec;22(6):555-559
pubmed: 32341211
Int J Androl. 2011 Aug;34(4 Pt 2):e14-9; discussion e20
pubmed: 21790650
Hum Reprod Update. 2019 Nov 5;25(6):733-757
pubmed: 31665451
Hum Reprod. 1999 Jan;14(1):131-5
pubmed: 10374109
Asian J Androl. 2018 Jan-Feb;20(1):30-36
pubmed: 28361811
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2010 Sep 08;8:108
pubmed: 20825644
Appl Clin Genet. 2021 Feb 12;14:51-59
pubmed: 33603438
Eur Urol. 2021 Nov;80(5):603-620
pubmed: 34511305
Urology. 2001 Feb;57(2):328-33
pubmed: 11182347
Hum Reprod. 2007 Jan;22(1):2-16
pubmed: 16887924
Reprod Med Biol. 2016 Jan 18;15(3):165-173
pubmed: 29259433
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Reprod Med Biol. 2015 Jun 23;15(1):29-33
pubmed: 29259419
Genes (Basel). 2023 Feb 14;14(2):
pubmed: 36833413
Antioxidants (Basel). 2021 Sep 27;10(10):
pubmed: 34679669
Andrologia. 2004 Jun;36(3):111-22
pubmed: 15206910
Andrology. 2013 Jan;1(1):47-51
pubmed: 23258629
BJU Int. 2013 Mar;111(3):492-9
pubmed: 22583840
Hum Reprod. 1998 Mar;13(3):709-14
pubmed: 9572439
Dis Markers. 2017;2017:3041565
pubmed: 29109595

Auteurs

Aris Kaltsas (A)

Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Ioannina, 45110 Ioannina, Greece.

Eleftheria Markou (E)

Department of Microbiology, University Hospital of Ioannina, 45500 Ioannina, Greece.

Athanasios Zachariou (A)

Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Ioannina, 45110 Ioannina, Greece.

Fotios Dimitriadis (F)

Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece.

Evangelos N Symeonidis (EN)

Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece.

Athanasios Zikopoulos (A)

Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Ioannina, 45110 Ioannina, Greece.

Charalampos Mamoulakis (C)

Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Crete, 70013 Heraklion, Greece.

Dung Mai Ba Tien (DMB)

Department of Andrology, Binh Dan Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City 70000, Vietnam.

Atsushi Takenaka (A)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Tottori University, Yonago 683-8503, Japan.

Nikolaos Sofikitis (N)

Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Ioannina, 45110 Ioannina, Greece.

Classifications MeSH