English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective  Determine whether testicular sperm extractions and pregnancy outcomes are influenced by male and female infertility diagnoses, location of surgical center and time to cryopreservation.    Patients  One hundred and thirty men undergoing testicular sperm extraction and 76 couples undergoing 123 in vitro fertilization cycles with testicular sperm.    Outcome Measures  Successful sperm recovery defined as 1–2 sperm/0.5 mL by diagnosis including obstructive azoospermia (n = 60), non-obstructive azoospermia (n = 39), cancer (n = 14), paralysis (n = 7) and other (n = 10). Obstructive azoospermia was analyzed as congenital absence of the vas deferens (n = 22), vasectomy or failed vasectomy reversal (n = 37) and “other”(n = 1). Sperm recovery was also evaluated by surgical site including infertility clinic (n = 54), hospital operating room (n = 67) and physician’s office (n = 11). Treatment cycles were evaluated for number of oocytes, fertilization, embryo quality, implantation rate and clinical/ongoing pregnancies as related to male diagnosis, female diagnosis, and use of fresh or cryopreserved testicular sperm.    Results  Testicular sperm recovery from azoospermic males with all diagnoses was high (70 to 100%) except non-obstructive azoospermia (31%) and was not influenced by distance from surgical center to laboratory. Following in vitro fertilization, rate of fertilization was significantly lower with non-obstructive azoospermia (43%, p = <0.0001) compared to other male diagnoses (66%, p = <0.0001, 59% p = 0.015). No differences were noted in clinical pregnancy rate by male diagnosis; however, the delivery rate per cycle was significantly higher with obstructive azoospermia (38% p = 0.0371) compared to diagnoses of cancer, paralysis or other (16.7%). Women diagnosed with diminished ovarian reserve had a reduced clinical pregnancy rate (7.4% p = 0.007) compared to those with other diagnoses (44%).    Conclusion  Testicular sperm extraction is a safe and effective option regardless of the etiology of the azoospermia. The type of surgical center and/or its distance from the laboratory was not related to success. Men with non-obstructive azoospermia have a lower chance of successful sperm retrieval and fertilization.

plos one

Sperm Recovery and IVF after Testicular Sperm Extraction (TESE): Effect of Male Diagnosis and Use of Off-Site Surgical Centers on Sperm Recovery and IVF