Factors Influencing the Decision for Fresh vs Cryopreserved Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction for Non-Obstructive Azoospermia

被引:5
作者
Asanad, Kian
Coward, R. Matthew
Mehta, Akanksha
Smith, James F.
Vij, Sarah C.
Nusbaum, David J.
Rodman, John C. S.
Samplaski, Mary K. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Southern Calif, Inst Urol, Los Angeles, CA USA
关键词
MEN; RETRIEVAL; OUTCOMES; INFERTILITY; ETIOLOGY; MODELS; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.urology.2021.07.016
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE To determine reproductive urologists' (RU) practice patterns for microdissection testicular sperm extraction (microTESE) and factors associated with use of fresh vs frozen microTESE for non-obstructive azoospermia. MATERIALS AND METHODS We electronically surveyed Society for Study of Male Reproduction members with a 21-item ques-tionnaire. Our primary outcomes were to determine RU preference for fresh or frozen microTESE and to understand barriers to performing microTESE. Pearson's chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to analyze categorical outcomes and candidate predictor variables. Firth logistic regression was performed to identify the predictors for preferring and performing fresh vs frozen microTESE. RESULTS A total of 208 surveys were sent with 76 responses. Most (63.0%) primarily perform frozen micro-TESE for non-obstructive azoospermia, while 37.0% primarily perform fresh. However, in an ideal practice, 59.3% prefer fresh microTESE, 22.2% prefer frozen microTESE, and 18.5% had no preference. MicroTESE is performed most often (61.1%) at surgical centers not affiliated with a fertility practice. The most commonly reported barriers for both fresh and frozen microTESE are cost (42.6%), scheduling (33.3%), and andrologist unavailability (16.7%). There are no statistically significant differences between these barriers and performing fresh vs frozen microTESE. On multi-variable analysis, reproductive endocrinology and infertility-based surgical center (OR 22.9; 95% CI 1.1-467.2; P = 0.04) and professional fee $2,500-$4,999 (OR 20.7; 95% CI 1.27-337.9; P = 0.03) are significant predictors of performing fresh microTESE. CONCLUSION Frozen microTESE is performed more commonly than fresh, despite most RU preferring fresh microTESE in an ideal setting. Both fresh and frozen microTESE have a role in reproductive care. Barriers to performing fresh microTESE include cost, scheduling and andrologist availability. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:131 / 137
页数:7
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   The relative viability of human spermatozoa from the vas deferens, epididymis and testis before and after cryopreservation [J].
Bachtell, NE ;
Conaghan, J ;
Turek, PJ .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 1999, 14 (12) :3048-3051
[2]  
Bryk DJL S, 2020, CLEVELAND CLIN
[3]   Comparison and outcomes of nonobstructive azoospermia patients with different etiology undergoing MicroTESE and ICSI treatments [J].
Chen, Xiangfeng ;
Ma, Yi ;
Zou, Shasha ;
Wang, Siqi ;
Qiu, Jin ;
Xiao, Qian ;
Zhou, Liang ;
Ping, Ping .
TRANSLATIONAL ANDROLOGY AND UROLOGY, 2019, 8 (04) :366-373
[4]   Sperm recovery and ICSI outcomes in men with non-obstructive azoospermia: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Corona, Giovanni ;
Minhas, Suks ;
Giwercman, Aleksander ;
Bettocchi, Carlo ;
Dinkelman-Smit, Marij ;
Dohle, Gert ;
Fusco, Ferdinando ;
Kadioglou, Ates ;
Kliesch, Sabine ;
Kopa, Zsolt ;
Krausz, Csilla ;
Pelliccione, Fiore ;
Pizzocaro, Alessandro ;
Rassweiler, Jens ;
Verze, Paolo ;
Vignozzi, Linda ;
Weidner, Wolfgang ;
Maggi, Mario ;
Sofikitis, Nikolaos .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION UPDATE, 2019, 25 (06) :733-757
[5]   The Impact of Physician Productivity Models on Access to Subspecialty Care: A White Paper From the Society for the Study of Male Reproduction and the Society for Male Reproduction and Urology [J].
Dupree, James M. ;
Coward, R. Matthew ;
Hsieh, Tung-Chin ;
Tanrikut, Cigdem ;
Shin, Paul ;
Mehta, Akanksha ;
Hotaling, James M. ;
Pastuszak, Alexander W. ;
Williams, Daniel ;
Alukal, Joseph ;
Lipshultz, Larry, I ;
Schlegel, Peter ;
Walsh, Thomas J. ;
Eisenberg, Michael L. ;
Shin, David ;
Honig, Stan ;
Nagler, Harris M. ;
Samplaski, Mary ;
Nangia, Ajay K. ;
Sandlow, Jay ;
Smith, James F. .
UROLOGY, 2021, 153 :28-34
[6]   Etiology of azoospermia in 100 consecutive nonvasectomized men [J].
Fedder, J ;
Crüger, D ;
Oestergaard, B ;
Petersen, GB .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2004, 82 (05) :1463-1465
[7]   Microdissection testicular sperm extraction [J].
Flannigan, Ryan ;
Bach, Phil V. ;
Schlegel, Peter N. .
TRANSLATIONAL ANDROLOGY AND UROLOGY, 2017, 6 (04) :745-752
[8]   Prognostic factors for sperm retrieval in non-obstructive azoospermia [J].
Glina, Sidney ;
Vieira, Marcelo .
CLINICS, 2013, 68 :121-124
[9]   Learning curves of microdissection testicular sperm extraction for nonobstructive azoospermia [J].
Ishikawa, Tomomoto ;
Nose, Ryuichiro ;
Yamaguchi, Kohei ;
Chiba, Koji ;
Fujisawa, Masato .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2010, 94 (03) :1008-1011
[10]   A comprehensive assessment of predictors of fertility outcomes in men with non-obstructive azoospermia undergoing microdissection testicular sperm extraction [J].
Kavoussi, Parviz K. ;
West, Brady T. ;
Chen, Shu-Hung ;
Hunn, Caitlin ;
Gilkey, Melissa S. ;
Machen, G. Luke ;
Kavoussi, Keikhosrow M. ;
Esqueda, Amy ;
Wininger, J. David ;
Kavoussi, Shahryar K. .
REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY AND ENDOCRINOLOGY, 2020, 18 (01)