Enzymatic tissue processing after testicular biopsy in non-obstructive azoospermia enhances sperm retrieval.
TESE
cumulative live birth delivery
enzymatic digestion
non-obstructive azoospermia
sperm retrieval
Journal
Human reproduction open
ISSN: 2399-3529
Titre abrégé: Hum Reprod Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101722764
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
15
07
2023
revised:
01
10
2023
medline:
8
11
2023
pubmed:
8
11
2023
entrez:
8
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
What is the added value of enzymatic processing of testicular biopsies on testicular sperm retrieval (SR) rates for patients with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA)? In addition to mechanical mincing, enzymatic digestion increased SR rates in testicular biopsies of NOA patients. Many studies focus on the surgical approach to optimize recovery of testicular sperm in NOA, and in spite of that, controversy still exists about whether the type of surgery makes any difference as long as multiple biopsies are taken. Few studies, however, focus on the role of the IVF laboratory and the benefit of additional lab procedures, e.g. enzymatic digestion, in order to optimize SR rates. This retrospective single-center cohort study included all patients who underwent their first testicular sperm extraction (TESE) by open multiple-biopsy method between January 2004 and July 2022. Only patients with a normal karyotype, absence of Y-q deletions and a diagnosis of NOA based on histology were included. The primary outcome was SR rate after mincing and/or enzymes. The secondary outcome was cumulative live birth (CLB) after ICSI with fresh TESE and subsequent ICSI cycles with frozen TESE. Multiple biopsies were obtained from the testis, unilaterally or bilaterally, on the day of oocyte retrieval. Upon mechanical mincing, biopsies were investigated for 30 min; when no or insufficient numbers of spermatozoa were observed, enzymatic treatment was performed using Collagenase type IV. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to predict CLB per TESE by adjusting for the following confounding factors: male FSH level, female age, and requirement of enzymatic digestion to find sperm. We included 118 patients, of whom 72 (61.0%) had successful SR eventually. Spermatozoa were retrieved after mechanical mincing for 28 patients (23.7%; 28/118) or after additional enzymatic digestion for another 44 patients (37.2%; 44/118). Thus, of the 90 patients requiring enzymatic digestion, sperm were retrieved for 44 (48.9%). Male characteristics were not different between patients with SR after mincing or enzymatic digestion, in regard to mean age (34.5 vs 34.5 years), testis volume (10.2 vs 10.6 ml), FSH (17.8 vs 16.9 IU/l), cryptorchidism (21.4 vs 34.1%), varicocele (3.6 vs 4.6%), or histological diagnosis (Sertoli-cell only 53.6 vs 47.7%, maturation arrest 21.4 vs 38.6%, sclerosis/atrophy 25.0 vs 13.6%).Of the 72 patients with sperm available for ICSI, 23/72 (31.9%) achieved a live birth (LB) after the injection with fresh testicular sperm (and fresh or frozen embryo transfers). Of the remaining 49 patients without LB, 34 (69.4%) had supernumerary testicular sperm frozen. Of these 34 patients, 19 (55.9%) continued ICSI with frozen testicular sperm, and 9/19 (47.4%) had achieved an LB after ICSI with frozen testicular sperm. Thus, the total CLB was 32/118 (27.1%) per TESE or 32/72 (44.4%) per TESE with sperm retrieved.Of the female characteristics (couples with sperm available), only female age (30.3 vs 32.7 years; Limitations of the study are related to the retrospective design. However, the selection of only patients with NOA, and specific characteristics (normal karyotype and absence Y-q deletion) and having their first TESE, strengthens our findings. Enzymatic processing increases the SR rate from testicular biopsies of NOA patients compared to mechanical mincing only, demonstrating the importance of an appropriate laboratory protocol. However, NOA patients should be counseled that when sperm have been found after enzymatic digestion, their chances to father a genetically own child may be lower compared to those not requiring enzymatic digestion. None reported. N/A.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37936829
doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoad039
pii: hoad039
pmc: PMC10627277
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
hoad039Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have nothing to disclose regarding this study.
Références
Hum Reprod Update. 2007 Nov-Dec;13(6):539-49
pubmed: 17895238
Int J Androl. 2010 Feb;33(1):e109-13
pubmed: 19703093
Fertil Steril. 1997 Aug;68(2):376-9
pubmed: 9240275
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015 Sep;32(9):1365-70
pubmed: 26292800
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005 May 1;120(1):80-6
pubmed: 15866091
Hum Reprod. 2011 Dec;26(12):3213-4
pubmed: 21930532
Hum Reprod. 1995 Jun;10(6):1457-60
pubmed: 7593514
Fertil Steril. 2015 Nov;104(5):1099-103.e1-3
pubmed: 26263080
Hum Reprod. 2011 Jul;26(7):1752-8
pubmed: 21511713
Hum Pathol. 1979 Sep;10(5):569-84
pubmed: 43278
Hum Reprod. 1998 Oct;13(1O):2791-6
pubmed: 9804232
Hum Reprod. 2015 Aug;30(8):1790-6
pubmed: 26082482
J Urol. 2014 Jan;191(1):175-8
pubmed: 23911635
Reprod Biomed Online. 2006 Dec;13(6):765-71
pubmed: 17169193
Cells. 2022 Sep 12;11(18):
pubmed: 36139420
Basic Clin Androl. 2017 Mar 21;27:6
pubmed: 28331619
Andrology. 2017 Jul;5(4):691-694
pubmed: 28395120
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16;(2):CD002807
pubmed: 18425884
Hum Reprod Update. 2019 Nov 5;25(6):733-757
pubmed: 31665451
Hum Reprod. 2002 Jul;17(7):1788-94
pubmed: 12093841
Hum Reprod. 1999 Jan;14(1):131-5
pubmed: 10374109
Andrologia. 2020 Oct;52(9):e13702
pubmed: 32524668
Int J Androl. 1994 Jun;17(3):140-2
pubmed: 7960188
Hum Reprod Update. 2020 Jun 18;26(4):606-609
pubmed: 32436579
Urol J. 2014 Sep 06;11(4):1825-8
pubmed: 25194084
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2010 Sep 08;8:108
pubmed: 20825644
Hum Reprod. 2004 Dec;19(12):2822-30
pubmed: 15492024
Eur Urol. 2021 Nov;80(5):603-620
pubmed: 34511305
Hum Reprod. 2016 Sep;31(9):1934-41
pubmed: 27406950
Hum Reprod. 1995 Oct;10 Suppl 1:115-9
pubmed: 8592027
Basic Clin Androl. 2013 Oct 02;23:5
pubmed: 25763186
Hum Reprod. 2002 Mar;17(3):671-94
pubmed: 11870121
Andrology. 2014 Jan;2(1):20-4
pubmed: 24193894
Hum Reprod. 2011 Dec;26(12):3215-21
pubmed: 21930531
BJU Int. 2013 Mar;111(3):492-9
pubmed: 22583840
Hum Reprod. 1996 Apr;11(4):752-5
pubmed: 8671322
Hum Reprod. 1995 Nov;10(11):2956-9
pubmed: 8747053
Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2004 Sep;32(9):767-70
pubmed: 15380760
Hum Reprod. 1997 Aug;12(8):1682-7
pubmed: 9308793
Fertil Steril. 2011 Aug;96(2):299-302
pubmed: 21669413
Asian J Androl. 2015 Mar-Apr;17(2):281-4
pubmed: 25337843
Hum Reprod. 1997 Jan;12(1):80-6
pubmed: 9043908
Hum Reprod Update. 2010 Nov-Dec;16(6):713-24
pubmed: 20601364