Analysis of clinical and neonatal outcomes of the second microTESE-ICSI treatment in nonobstructive azoospermia patients
10.3760/cma.j.cn101441-20250301-00099
- VernacularTitle:非梗阻性无精子症患者行第二次microTESE-ICSI治疗的临床及新生儿结局分析
- Author:
Sen QIAO
1
;
Lei WANG
1
;
Jie YANG
1
;
Liang ZHOU
1
Author Information
1. 西北妇女儿童医院生殖中心，西安 710003
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Nonobstructive azoospermia;
Microdissection testicular sperm extraction;
Reoperation;
Neonatal outcomes
- From:
Chinese Journal of Reproduction and Contraception
2025;45(7):653-657
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the clinical and neonatal outcomes of nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA) patients undergoing a second microdissection testicular sperm extraction (microTESE) combined with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).Methods:A retrospective self-controll study and a cohort study were conducted in 29 NOA patients who underwent the second microTESE-ICSI treatments at the Assisted Reproduction Center of Northwest Women's and Children's Hospital between October 2013 and December 2024, with successful sperm retrieval in the first microTESE for all included patients. The sperm retrieval rate (SRR), the two-pronuclei (2PN) rate, the high-quality embryo rate, the transferable embryo rate, the blastocyst formation rate, the pregnancy and neonatal outcomes between the two microTESE-ICSI cycles were analyzed. According to whether sperm was detected during the second microTESE, the patients were divided into detected sperm group ( n=22) and without detected sperm group ( n=7). The surgical interval, preoperative hormone levels, testicular volume, and patient pathological type were compared between the two groups. Patients who had achieved at least one biochemical pregnancy in the first cycle were classified as the pregnancy group, while those who had not achieved a biochemical pregnancy were classified as the non-pregnancy group, and the pregnancy outcomes of patients during the second microTESE-ICSI treatment were compared between the two groups. Previous surgical recordings were also analyzed. Results:The SRR of the second microTESE was 75.9% (22/29). There were no statistically significant differencs in surgical interval, preoperative hormones level, testicular volume, and patient pathological type between detected sperm group and without detected group during the second examination (all P>0.05). SRR showed no difference between idiopathic and non-idiopathic NOA ( P>0.05). 2PN rate, high-quality embryo rate, transferable embryo rate, blastocyst formation rate did not differ statistically between the two cycles (all P>0.05). Among patients completing follow-up in the second microTESE-ICSI cycle, cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates after all embryos transfer were 52.4% (11/21) and 42.9% (9/21), respectively. Further analysis revealed that patients in pregnancy group [75.0% (6/8)] had significantly higher cumulative live birth rate than that in non-pregnancy group [23.1% (3/13), P=0.032] in the second cycle. No birth defects were observed in neonates. Surgical video review suggested that excessive microdissection and low-magnification electrocautery hemostasis might increase intratesticular scarring. Conclusion:For NOA patients with failed initial microTESE-ICSI, the second treatment can effectively retrieve sperm and achieve favorable pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. Patients with prior biochemical pregnancy may benefit from higher live birth rate in subsequent cycles.
