Use of mini‐incision microdissection testicular sperm extraction in men with cryptozoospermia and non‐obstructive azoospermia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Microdissection testicular sperm extraction (micro-TESE) is a procedure commonly utilized to harvest spermatozoa in severe male factor infertility. We have developed a technique involving a mini tunica albuginea incision with superficial tissue dissection (mini-incision micro-TESE). The modification is designed to reduce potential tissue injury, and we studied its effectiveness to harvest spermatozoa in men with cryptozoospermia and non-obstructive azoospermia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 103 infertile men with NOA and cryptozoospermia who underwent a mini-incision micro-TESE between March 2015 and August 2018 at the OVO fertility clinic. We consider the mini-incision micro-TESE procedure successful when at least five spermatozoa are identified in the micro-biopsies obtained from the superficial tissue exposed by the 1-cm mini-incision. If no spermatozoa are identified through the mini-incision, we can easily extend the incision to the standard micro-TESE. RESULTS: The mini-incision procedure allowed for successful recovery of spermatozoa (intra-operative recovery of ≥ 5 spermatozoa) in 58% of men with cryptozoospermia and 25.6% of men with NOA. Overall, a successful sperm retrieval (with conversion to conventional micro-TESE if mini-incision was not successful) was achieved in 89% of men with cryptozoospermia and 48% of men with NOA. A successful mini-incision micro-TESE was associated with a significantly lower number of biopsies than conventional micro-TESE (8.8 vs 24.2, P < .0001). Moreover, in men undergoing a redo micro-TESE after a previously successful micro-TESE, 64% (9/14) had spermatozoa found and 21% (3/14) of these men only required a mini-incision micro-TESE. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that mini-incision micro-TESE is a useful approach in men undergoing micro-TESE, allowing for a shorter incision and a high sperm retrieval rate in men with cryptozoospermia. Furthermore, the findings of our study offer insight into the distribution of spermatogenesis in men with cryptozoospermia and NOA.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".