Percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration versus microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration for irreparable obstructive azoospermia - Experience with 100 cases

YungMing Lin, Chao Chin Hsu, Tsung Cheng Kuo, Johnny Shinn Nan Lin, Shan-Tair Wang, Ko En Huang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigated the sperm retrieval success rates, fertilization rates, pregnancy rates, and complications of percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration (PESA) and microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration (MESA) in cases of irreparable obstructive azoospermia. Methods: During a period of 36 months, 100 men with irreparable obstructive azoospermia underwent 109 cycles of sperm retrieval procedures and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). We routinely performed PESA first in each retrieval cycle; MESA and/or testicular sperm extraction (TESE) were performed if PESA failed. The sperm retrieval success rates, mean fertilization rates, and pregnancy rates of PESA and MESA were evaluated. Results: PESA was performed in all 109 retrieval cycles with a successful sperm retrieval rate of 61%. When PESA failed to retrieve a sufficient number of viable sperm, MESA was subsequently performed with a sperm retrieval rate of 93%. Three cases, which had failed retrieval with both the PESA and MESA procedures, received TESE successfully. The rates of fertilization and pregnancy were 56% and 39% in the 66 PESA-ICSI cycles, respectively, and 47% and 45% in the 40 MESA-ICSI cycles. No significant differences were found in fertilization rates or pregnancy rates among the various sperm retrieval methods and obstruction etiologies. The overall mean fertilization rate and pregnancy rate were 51% and 41%, respectively. Conclusion: Both PESA and MESA can be used successfully to obtain sufficient sperm. for ICSI. PESA cannot replace MESA in some cases as some epididymal pathologies prevent its success. The results of this study indicate that PESA should be the treatment of choice for patients with ductal obstruction distal to the epididymis, owing to its higher initial success rate. In contrast, patients with irreparable epididymal obstruction might achieve better success rates with MESA.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)459-465
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of the Formosan Medical Association
Volume99
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - 2000 Jun 1

Fingerprint

Sperm Retrieval
Azoospermia
Pregnancy Rate
Fertilization
Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injections
Spermatozoa

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Lin, YungMing ; Hsu, Chao Chin ; Kuo, Tsung Cheng ; Lin, Johnny Shinn Nan ; Wang, Shan-Tair ; Huang, Ko En. / Percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration versus microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration for irreparable obstructive azoospermia - Experience with 100 cases. In: Journal of the Formosan Medical Association. 2000 ; Vol. 99, No. 6. pp. 459-465.
@article{6c1f8a03b5b54f5f9c2708cdfdf2d5c7,
title = "Percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration versus microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration for irreparable obstructive azoospermia - Experience with 100 cases",
abstract = "Purpose: This study investigated the sperm retrieval success rates, fertilization rates, pregnancy rates, and complications of percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration (PESA) and microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration (MESA) in cases of irreparable obstructive azoospermia. Methods: During a period of 36 months, 100 men with irreparable obstructive azoospermia underwent 109 cycles of sperm retrieval procedures and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). We routinely performed PESA first in each retrieval cycle; MESA and/or testicular sperm extraction (TESE) were performed if PESA failed. The sperm retrieval success rates, mean fertilization rates, and pregnancy rates of PESA and MESA were evaluated. Results: PESA was performed in all 109 retrieval cycles with a successful sperm retrieval rate of 61{\%}. When PESA failed to retrieve a sufficient number of viable sperm, MESA was subsequently performed with a sperm retrieval rate of 93{\%}. Three cases, which had failed retrieval with both the PESA and MESA procedures, received TESE successfully. The rates of fertilization and pregnancy were 56{\%} and 39{\%} in the 66 PESA-ICSI cycles, respectively, and 47{\%} and 45{\%} in the 40 MESA-ICSI cycles. No significant differences were found in fertilization rates or pregnancy rates among the various sperm retrieval methods and obstruction etiologies. The overall mean fertilization rate and pregnancy rate were 51{\%} and 41{\%}, respectively. Conclusion: Both PESA and MESA can be used successfully to obtain sufficient sperm. for ICSI. PESA cannot replace MESA in some cases as some epididymal pathologies prevent its success. The results of this study indicate that PESA should be the treatment of choice for patients with ductal obstruction distal to the epididymis, owing to its higher initial success rate. In contrast, patients with irreparable epididymal obstruction might achieve better success rates with MESA.",
author = "YungMing Lin and Hsu, {Chao Chin} and Kuo, {Tsung Cheng} and Lin, {Johnny Shinn Nan} and Shan-Tair Wang and Huang, {Ko En}",
year = "2000",
month = "6",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "99",
pages = "459--465",
journal = "Journal of the Formosan Medical Association",
issn = "0929-6646",
publisher = "Excerpta Medica Asia Ltd.",
number = "6",

}

Percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration versus microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration for irreparable obstructive azoospermia - Experience with 100 cases. / Lin, YungMing; Hsu, Chao Chin; Kuo, Tsung Cheng; Lin, Johnny Shinn Nan; Wang, Shan-Tair; Huang, Ko En.

In: Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, Vol. 99, No. 6, 01.06.2000, p. 459-465.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration versus microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration for irreparable obstructive azoospermia - Experience with 100 cases

AU - Lin, YungMing

AU - Hsu, Chao Chin

AU - Kuo, Tsung Cheng

AU - Lin, Johnny Shinn Nan

AU - Wang, Shan-Tair

AU - Huang, Ko En

PY - 2000/6/1

Y1 - 2000/6/1

N2 - Purpose: This study investigated the sperm retrieval success rates, fertilization rates, pregnancy rates, and complications of percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration (PESA) and microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration (MESA) in cases of irreparable obstructive azoospermia. Methods: During a period of 36 months, 100 men with irreparable obstructive azoospermia underwent 109 cycles of sperm retrieval procedures and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). We routinely performed PESA first in each retrieval cycle; MESA and/or testicular sperm extraction (TESE) were performed if PESA failed. The sperm retrieval success rates, mean fertilization rates, and pregnancy rates of PESA and MESA were evaluated. Results: PESA was performed in all 109 retrieval cycles with a successful sperm retrieval rate of 61%. When PESA failed to retrieve a sufficient number of viable sperm, MESA was subsequently performed with a sperm retrieval rate of 93%. Three cases, which had failed retrieval with both the PESA and MESA procedures, received TESE successfully. The rates of fertilization and pregnancy were 56% and 39% in the 66 PESA-ICSI cycles, respectively, and 47% and 45% in the 40 MESA-ICSI cycles. No significant differences were found in fertilization rates or pregnancy rates among the various sperm retrieval methods and obstruction etiologies. The overall mean fertilization rate and pregnancy rate were 51% and 41%, respectively. Conclusion: Both PESA and MESA can be used successfully to obtain sufficient sperm. for ICSI. PESA cannot replace MESA in some cases as some epididymal pathologies prevent its success. The results of this study indicate that PESA should be the treatment of choice for patients with ductal obstruction distal to the epididymis, owing to its higher initial success rate. In contrast, patients with irreparable epididymal obstruction might achieve better success rates with MESA.

AB - Purpose: This study investigated the sperm retrieval success rates, fertilization rates, pregnancy rates, and complications of percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration (PESA) and microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration (MESA) in cases of irreparable obstructive azoospermia. Methods: During a period of 36 months, 100 men with irreparable obstructive azoospermia underwent 109 cycles of sperm retrieval procedures and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). We routinely performed PESA first in each retrieval cycle; MESA and/or testicular sperm extraction (TESE) were performed if PESA failed. The sperm retrieval success rates, mean fertilization rates, and pregnancy rates of PESA and MESA were evaluated. Results: PESA was performed in all 109 retrieval cycles with a successful sperm retrieval rate of 61%. When PESA failed to retrieve a sufficient number of viable sperm, MESA was subsequently performed with a sperm retrieval rate of 93%. Three cases, which had failed retrieval with both the PESA and MESA procedures, received TESE successfully. The rates of fertilization and pregnancy were 56% and 39% in the 66 PESA-ICSI cycles, respectively, and 47% and 45% in the 40 MESA-ICSI cycles. No significant differences were found in fertilization rates or pregnancy rates among the various sperm retrieval methods and obstruction etiologies. The overall mean fertilization rate and pregnancy rate were 51% and 41%, respectively. Conclusion: Both PESA and MESA can be used successfully to obtain sufficient sperm. for ICSI. PESA cannot replace MESA in some cases as some epididymal pathologies prevent its success. The results of this study indicate that PESA should be the treatment of choice for patients with ductal obstruction distal to the epididymis, owing to its higher initial success rate. In contrast, patients with irreparable epididymal obstruction might achieve better success rates with MESA.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033913615&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033913615&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10925551

AN - SCOPUS:0033913615

VL - 99

SP - 459

EP - 465

JO - Journal of the Formosan Medical Association

JF - Journal of the Formosan Medical Association

SN - 0929-6646

IS - 6

ER -