Changes in Testosterone Levels Following Surgical Sperm Retrieval in Men with Non-Obstructive Azoospermia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Surgical sperm retrieval (SSR) is used to extract spermatozoa for use with intracytoplasmic sperm injection in men with obstructive and non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA). The procedure may lead to segmental devascularization, postoperative fibrosis, and atrophy with a subsequent decrease in testosterone. The aim of the study is to investigate the impact of SSR on serum levels of total testosterone (TT), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH) testicular volume, and sexual function in infertile azoospermic men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA), we searched articles in "PubMed" and "Scopus" exploring the impact of SSR on TT, FSH, LH, and testicular volume. The full-text articles were screened to assess eligibility before data extraction, quality assessment, and meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seventeen studies meeting the inclusion criteria were finally analyzed and included 1,685 infertile, azoospermic men. Patients underwent SSR and were followed in the postoperative period (one week to 32 months). The analysis showed a significant reduction in TT (mean difference [MD] 3.81 nmol/L, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55:7.06; p=0.02) compared to pre-SSR values. We also observed insignificant differences in serum FSH (MD 5.08 IU/L, 95% CI -5.6:15.8; p=0.35), LH (MD -2.96 IU/L, 95% CI -6.31:0.39; p=0.08), and no change in testicular volume (MD 0.07 mL, 95% CI -1.92:2.07; p=0.94) after SSR. Sexual dysfunction was associated with hypogonadism, depression, and anxiety, especially in men with unsuccessful SSR and Klinefelter syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this SRMA indicate a significant reduction in TT after SSR. Sexual dysfunction after testicular sperm extraction and the potential negative impact of future SSR repeat should be considered during preoperative counseling.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".