Zhu Yong-Tong, Luo Chen, Li Yun, Li Hong, Quan Song, Deng Yong-Jian, Yang Yu, Hu Yong-Hua, Tan Wan-Long, Chu Qing-Jun
Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, Guangdong, China.
Department of Pathology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, Guangdong, China.
Asian J Androl. 2016 Nov-Dec;18(6):904-907. doi: 10.4103/1008-682X.165948.
Patients with extremely severe oligozoospermia (ESO) and cryptozoospermia (CO) are suitable using intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) as an infertility treatment. However, some andrologists are confused to distinguish ESO and CO in clinic diagnose. This study was designed for the first time to evaluate and compare patients with ESO and CO to determine whether these are useful clinical distinctions. A total of 270 infertile men in our center were classified into four groups as Group nonobstruction azoospermia (NOA, n = 44), Group ESO (n = 78), Group CO (n = 40), and Group obstruction azoospermia (OA, n = 108). Comparisons of the volume of bilateral testes, the level of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and inhibin B were obtained in four groups. Then comparisons of fertilization rates, cleavage rate, and excellent embryos rate were obtained when couples performed ICSI. All indexes (volume of bilateral testis, level of FSH and inhibin B) in Groups ESO and CO were no difference, while Groups OA versus NOA, OA versus ESO, and OA versus CO were significant differences (P < 0.05). The rates of fertilization were no differences in Groups ESO and CO while Groups OA versus ESO, OA versus CO were significant differences (P < 0.05). Therefore, the spermatogenic functions in patients with CO and ESO were similar, better than NOA but worse than OA. However, it would be helpful to evaluate their spermatogenesis using testicular biopsies, especially accompanied azoospermia in clinical practice.
患有极重度少精子症(ESO)和隐匿性无精子症(CO)的患者适合采用卵胞浆内单精子注射(ICSI)作为不育治疗方法。然而,一些男科医生在临床诊断中难以区分ESO和CO。本研究首次旨在评估和比较ESO和CO患者,以确定这些是否为有用的临床区分。我们中心共有270名不育男性被分为四组,即非梗阻性无精子症组(NOA,n = 44)、ESO组(n = 78)、CO组(n = 40)和梗阻性无精子症组(OA,n = 108)。比较了四组双侧睾丸体积、卵泡刺激素(FSH)水平和抑制素B水平。然后比较了夫妇进行ICSI时的受精率、卵裂率和优质胚胎率。ESO组和CO组的所有指标(双侧睾丸体积、FSH水平和抑制素B水平)无差异,而OA组与NOA组、OA组与ESO组以及OA组与CO组之间存在显著差异(P < 0.05)。ESO组和CO组的受精率无差异,而OA组与ESO组、OA组与CO组之间存在显著差异(P < 0.05)。因此,CO和ESO患者的生精功能相似,优于NOA但劣于OA。然而,在临床实践中,尤其是伴有无精子症时,使用睾丸活检评估他们的生精情况会有所帮助。