Testicular sperm aspiration (<scp>TESA</scp>) for infertile couples with severe or complete asthenozoospermia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate reproductive outcomes in a cohort of infertile couples with severe and complete asthenozoospermia undergoing TESA (testicular sperm aspiration) with ICSI. We conducted a retrospective study of 28 couples with complete or severe asthenozoospermia who underwent TESA between January 2010 and December 2015. We compared TESA-ICSI outcomes of these couples to ejaculate ICSI outcomes of 40 couples with severe asthenozoospermia treated during the same time period at our institution. Couples with female factor infertility and/or female aged ≥39 were excluded. Sperm retrieval rates and ICSI outcomes [(MII oocytes, fertilization rate, good embryo rate (transferred and frozen), couples with embryo transfer (per cycle started), clinical pregnancy (per embryo transfer)] were recorded. Patients were grouped based on whether they had ejaculated (Ej-group) or testicular (TESA-group) spermatozoa used. Testicular sperm patients were further classified based on whether they had complete asthenozoospermia (0% total motility) (Tc-group) or severe asthenozoospermia (≤1% progressive motility) (Ts-group). Mean (±SD) male and female ages were 36 ± 6 and 32 ± 4, respectively. Sperm recovery by testicular sperm aspiration (TESA) was successful in 100% (28/28) of the men. The overall clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) per cycle started was 34% (23/68) with a mean of 1.1 ± 0.4 embryos transferred per transfer. Fertilization rates were significantly lower in TESA-group compared to Ej-group (52% vs. 67%, respectively; p = 0.001), while male age was significantly higher in TESA-group compared to Ej-group (34 ± 6 vs. 37 ± 6, respectively; p = 0.03). Moreover, female age was significantly higher in Tc-group compared to Ts-group (30 ± 4 vs. 33 ± 3, respectively; p = 0.0285). However, there were no significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer in the Tc-group, Ts-group, and Ej-group (50% vs. 45% vs. 57%, respectively; p = 0.8219). The data suggest that testicular sperm-ICSI is no better than ejaculated sperm-ICSI in couples with severe or complete asthenozoospermia. Randomized, controlled trials comparing ejaculated vs. testicular spermatozoa are needed to assess the true benefit of TESA-ICSI in these couples.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".