Comparison of the Effects of Different Testicular Sperm Extraction Methods on the Embryonic Development of Azoospermic Men in Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) Cycles: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND

The effects of different testicular sperm extraction methods on the embryonic development and clinical outcome of azoospermic men in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles have not been researched. Our goal was to evaluate the effect of different sperm retrieval methods used for patients with OA or NOA on the embryonic development and clinical outcomes during the ICSI cycles.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. A total of 530 azoospermic patients who underwent 570 ICSI cycles met the study criteria. ICSI was performed using testicular sperm by TESA in 282 cycles (TESA group); ICSI with testicular sperm by mTESE was performed due to NOA in 90 cycles (mTESE group); ICSI with testicular sperm by MESA was performed in 198 cycles (MESA group). The embryonic development and clinical outcomes of the three groups were counted.

RESULTS

The general characteristics of the three groups were comparable. Our findings showed that the three groups were matched in terms of infertility durations and age. The mean age and the mean BMI of the female partners were similar in the three groups. Also, our findings showed there were no significant differences in the three groups regarding day 3 of the menstrual cycle FSH and days of stimulation. The research results showed that the total dose of FSH and E2 on the HCG administration day was also not statistically different in the three groups. The number of oocytes retrieved had no significant differences in the three groups. However, the number of 2PNs per cycle and the number of cleavages per cycle were higher in the MESA group than in the other two groups; the TESA group and mTESE group were similar. The number of good quality D3 embryos and the number of good quality D5 embryos were significantly decreased in the mTESE group as compared to the other two groups. Good quality D3 embryos and the rate of good quality D5 embryos in the mTESE group were lower than those in the other two groups. Moreover, the clinical pregnancy rates of the TESA group (50.71%) and the MESA group (51.52%) were similar, but both were much higher than that of the mTESE group (32.22%).

CONCLUSIONS

The mTESE provides a good clinical outcome for NOA patients with severe spermatogenic impairment, including the rate of good quality D3 embryos, the rate of good quality D5 embryos, and the clinical pregnancy rate. However, our data suggested that both the TESA and MESA groups had better embryonic development and clinical outcomes than the mTESE group.