Microfluidic Systems for Isolation of Spermatozoa from Testicular Specimens of Non-Obstructive Azoospermic Men: Does/Can It Improve Sperm Yield?

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has allowed reproduction options through assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) for men with no spermatozoa within the ejaculate (azoospermia). In men with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA), the options for spermatozoa retrieval are testicular sperm extraction (TESE), testicular sperm aspiration (TESA), or micro-surgical sperm extraction (microTESE). At the initial time of spermatozoa removal from the testis, spermatozoa are immobile. Independent of the means of spermatozoa retrieval, the subsequent steps of removing spermatozoa from seminiferous tubules, determining spermatozoa viability, identifying enough spermatozoa for oocyte injections, and isolating viable spermatozoa for injection are currently performed manually by laboratory microscopic dissection and collection. These laboratory techniques are highly labor-intensive, with yield unknown, have an unpredictable efficiency and/or success rate, and are subject to inter-laboratory personnel and intra-laboratory variability. Here, we consider the potential utility, benefits, and shortcomings of developing technologies such as motility induction/stimulants, microfluidics, dielectrophoresis, and cell sorting as andrological laboratory add-ons to reduce the technical burdens and variabilities in viable spermatozoa isolation from testicular samples in men with NOA.

Relationship of sperm motility with clinical outcome of percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration–intracytoplasmic sperm injection in infertile males with congenital domestic absence of vas deferens: a retrospective study

Summary Congenital domestic absence of vas deferens (CBAVD) is a common factor in male infertility, and percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration (PESA) combined with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is a primary clinical treatment, but the effect of the sperm obtained on pregnancy outcome remains to be explored. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between sperm motility with clinical outcome of PESA–ICSI in infertile males with CBAVD. A cohort of 110 couples was enrolled. In total, 76 infertile males were included in the high motility group, while the remaining 34 males were placed in the low motility group. Clinical pregnancy, embryo implantation rate and live birth rate were included as the primary outcome. After all follow-ups, we found that the high motility group achieved higher normal fertilization rates, cleavage rates, transplantable embryo rates and high-quality embryo rates than those in low motility group (normal fertilization rate, 78.2 ± 11.7% vs. 70.5 ± 10.2%, P = 0.003; cleavage rate, 97.1 ± 2.9% vs. 92.3 ± 3.0%, P = 0.000; transplantable embryo rate, 66.8 ± 14.9% vs. 58.6 ± 12.6%, P = 0.009 and high-quality embryo rate, 49.9 ± 10.5% vs. 40.5 ± 11.2%, P = 0.000). Additionally, compared with the low motility group, the clinical pregnancy rates, embryo implantation rates, and live birth rates in the high motility group were significantly increased (pregnancy rate, 61.8% vs. 26.5%, P = 0.009; embryo implantation rate, 36.5% vs. 18.0%, P = 0.044; live birth rate, 55.3% vs. 17.6%, P = 0.000). We concluded that the motility of sperm obtained by PESA affected the clinical outcome of ICSI in infertile males with CBAVD.

Predictors of testicular sperm retrieval in patients with non-obstructive azoospermia: a review

Azoospermia is divided into two categories of obstructive azoospermia and non-obstructive azoospermia. Before 1995, couples with a male partner diagnosed with non-obstructive azoospermia had to choose sperm donation or adoption to have a child. Currently, testicular sperm aspiration or micro-dissection testicular sperm extraction combined with intracytoplasmic sperm injection allows patients with non-obstructive azoospermia to have biological offspring. The sperm retrieval rate is significantly higher in micro-dissection testicular sperm extraction compared with testicular sperm aspiration. Additionally, micro-dissection testicular sperm extraction has the advantages of minimal invasion, safety, limited disruption of testicular function, a low risk of postoperative intratesticular bleeding, and low serum testosterone concentrations. Failed micro-dissection testicular sperm extraction has significant emotional and financial implications on the involved couples. Testicular sperm aspiration and micro-dissection testicular sperm extraction have the possibility of failure. Therefore, predicting the sperm retrieval rate before surgery is important. This narrative review summarizes the existing data on testicular sperm aspiration and micro-dissection testicular sperm extraction to identify the possible factor(s) that can predict the presence of sperm to guide clinical practice. The predictors of surgical sperm retrieval in patients with non-obstructive azoospermia have been widely studied, but there is no consensus.

Endocrine Tests and/or Testicular Volume are Not Predictive of Successful Sperm Retrieval by Conventional Multiple Testicular Sperm Extraction in Nonobstructive Azoospermia

Objectives: This study aimed to determine the role of presurgical markers in the prediction of sperm retrieval by conventional Multiple Testicular Sperm Extraction in infertile Vietnamese men with nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA). Patients and Methods: Retrospective descriptive analysis of 136 infertile men with azoospermia, examined from August 2014 to July 2018. Patients underwent stepwise surgical sperm retrieval via percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration, testicular sperm aspiration, then conventional multiple testicular sperm extraction in up to three locations, and procedures stopped as soon as sperm were detected. Factors were analyzed to determine the prediction of the likelihood of successful sperm retrieval, in men with NOA. Results: The overall success rate of sperm retrieval in men with azoospermia was 49.3%, but it was only 18.4% in NOA group. The difference in testicular volume between men with successful sperm retrieval and unsuccessful sperm retrieval was not statistically significant in NOA group (5.68 ± 2.37 vs. 4.46 ± 2.83, p = 0.138). The differences in the endocrine tests between the two groups were also not significant in terms of luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and testosterone (p ¿ 0.05). Multivariable analysis of predictive factors of sperm retrieval in NOA groups found no significant difference, except testicular density (p = 0.015). Conclusions:In infertile men with NOA, neither an endocrine test nor testicular volume should be used for predicting the results of surgical sperm retrieval by conventional multiple testicular sperm extraction.