Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 15, 2025
Vessel-Sparing Microsurgical Longitudinal Intussusception Vasoepididymostomy to Treat Epididymal Obstructive Azoospermia
Published on: May 27, 2022
Evaluating the quality of reported outcomes for microsurgical TESE in men with non-obstructive azoospermia: A
John Ernandez1, Brittany Berk2, Tracy Han2
1Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Background:
Publications of microsurgical testicular sperm extraction (mTESE) techniques and outcomes are heterogeneous, which may limit creation of best surgical practices.
Objective:
To study the quality and heterogeneity of published mTESE outcomes via a methodological analysis.
Materials/Methods:
A systematic methodological analysis of all published literature on the use of mTESE in men with non-obstructive azoospermia from 1999 to the July 2020 was performed. PubMed and MEDLINE searches were performed using the search terms "microdissection TESE OR microsurgical TESE." Publications were evaluated on their reporting of pre-operative factors, intraoperative techniques, surgical and clinical outcomes, and adverse events.
Results:
Fifty-five studies met inclusion criteria. Surgical technique and sperm retrieval rates were the most reported criteria. Reporting on the presence of an embryologist intraoperatively was observed in approximately 30% of articles, while other procedural details including method of sperm quantification, quantity retrieved, and number of cryopreserved vials were observed in fewer than 10% of articles. Clinical outcomes, including pregnancy rates and live birth rates, were reported in fewer than 40% of the articles. Fetal outcomes including fetal and neonatal anomalies were rarely reported. Fetal growth restriction, preterm delivery, small or large for gestational age, and NICU admissions were never reported.
Conclusion:
There are inconsistencies in reporting quality of mTESE outcomes, specifically a lack of information on the quantity and quality of sperm retrieved, the role of embryology intraoperatively, and clinical outcomes, such as live birth rate and fetal anomalies. These gaps may guide development of standardized reporting guidelines to better assess and compare clinical outcomes across institutions and maintain focus on couples-centric fertility outcomes in future mTESE studies.
