Upload
sandro-esteves
View
6.621
Download
7
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sandro Esteves, MD, PhD
Director, ANDROFERT Center for Male Reproduction
Campinas, BRAZIL
Esteves, 2
Learning Objectives Learn the definitions and difference between
obstructive (OA) and non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA)
Overview of conventional sperm retrieval techniques and results for azoospermic men
Understand the rationale of using micro-TESE for the worst azoospermia scenarios
Micro-TESE: technique and results
• Complete absence of spermatozoa in the ejaculate after centrifugation Azoospermia
• 1-3% male population • 10% infertile males Prevalence
• Obstructive • Nonobstructive Types
Esteves, Miyaoka & Agarwal. An update on the initial assessment of the infertile male. CLINICS 2011; 66:1-10.
Azoospermia: Definitions
Esteves, 5
Obstructive Azoospermia
Features Normal Sperm
Production Mechanical Blockage
Main Causes: ● Vasectomy, Post-infectious ● Congenital (CBAVD) ● Iatrogenic, Trauma
Sperm Retrieval
Simple and Effective
Sites: ● Epididymis ● Testis ● Vas deferens
Obstructive Azoospermia
http://androfert.com.br/videos
100% 95.3%
100% 97.9%
CBAVD (N=30) Vasectomy(N=64)
Post-infectious(N=48)
Total (N=142)
Esteves SC, Verza S, Prudencio C, Seol B. Success of percutaneous sperm retrieval and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in obstructive azoospermic (OA) men
according to the cause of obstruction. Fertil Steril. 2010;94 (Suppl):S233.
70
48 43
12
73
46 51
20
Fertilization rate(%)
%TQE Pregnancy (%) Miscarriage (%)
Ejaculate Epididymis/Testicle
Verza Jr S & Esteves SC. Sperm defect severity rather than sperm source is associated
with lower fertilization rates after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Int Braz J Urol 2008; 34:49-56.
P >0.05
Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Outcomes Using Ejaculated vs. Surgically-retrieved Sperm from em
with Obstructive Azoospermia
Non-obstructive Azoospermia
Esteves, 9
Small testes/elevated FSH/”sterile” Absent or poor production for sperm
in ejaculate Heterogeneity of sperm production:
600-800 seminiferous tubules/testis; Single focus of production adequate to retrieve spermatozoa for ICSI
Goal: To identify and retrieve sperm for ICSI Geographic location unpredictable
Non-obstructive Azoospermia Untreatable
condition
Esteves, 10
Can We Predict Sperm Retrieval Success in NOA?
Important because:
1. Can minimize emotional and financial cost of IVF cycles.
2. Can minimize trauma/damage to testis during sperm harvesting.
Esteves, 11
Predictive Value of Noninvasive Tests for Sperm Retrieval in NOA
Verza Jr. & Esteves. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: S53
FSH Testosterone
Testicular Volume
Esteves, 12
Predictive Value of Invasive Tests for Sperm Retrieval in NOA
Esteves, 13
Testicular Histopathology
Predictive Value of Histopathology Results in Sperm Retrieval for men
with NOA
Sensitivity (95% CI)
Specificity (95% CI)
Accuracy (%)
HYPO 93 (66-100) 70 (54-82) 81.9
MA 64 (31-89) 59 (44-73)
SCO 20 (08-37) 20 (07-41)
Verza Jr. & Esteves. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: S53 Esteves, 14
Predictive Value of Testing for Successful Sperm Retrieval in NOA
Conventional Sperm Retrieval Techniques in NOA
Esteves, 16
Controlled studies for NOA men
Needle Aspiration
Open Biopsy
Friedler et al., Human Reprod 12:1488, 1997
4/37 (11%) 16/37 (43%)
Ezeh et al. Human Reprod 13:3075, 1998
5/35 (14%) 22/35 (63%)
Conventional TESE (open biopsy) in NOA
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 14
Num
ber o
f pat
ient
s
Number of testicular fragments excised
Ostad et al., Urology 52:692, 1998. Esteves, 17
Testicular Microdissection Micro-TESE
• Method to identify site(s) of production – Based on the diameter of
seminiferous tubules • Microsurgical approach
– Identify site of production – Preserve vasculature of testis – Small quantity of tissue excised
Schlegel PN. Testicular sperm extraction: microdissection improves sperm yield with minimal tissue excision. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:131-135.
Watch the video at http://androfert.com.br/videos
Vascular pattern of testis
• Extensive pattern of vessels surrounding the testis
Photomicrograph courtesy JP Jarow, M.D.
Intratesticular Anatomy
• Parallel arteries and veins surrounding seminiferous tubules
• Allows dissection between tubules
Microsurgical Identification of Sperm-producing tubules by Appearance
Esteves, 22
OR = 1.63 (95% CI: 1.32 – 2.01)
41% 53%
TESE Micro-TESE
Schlegel 1999
Amer et al. 2000
Okada et al. 2002
Okubu et al. 2002
Tsujimura et al. 2002
Ramon et al. 2003
Esteves et al. 2011
Micro-TESE vs TESE Success Rates in Controlled Series
Microsurgical versus conventional single-biopsy testicular sperm extraction in nonobstructive azoospermia: a prospective
controlled study Verza Jr S, Esteves SC. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (3): S53
Esteves, 24
TESE Micro-TESE
Microsurgical vs Single-Biopsy TESE in Nonobstructive Azoospermia
45%
93%
64%
20% 25%
64%
9% 6%
Overall Hypospermatogenesis Maturation Arrest Sertoli-cell Only
Sperm Retrieval Success Rates Micro-TESE single-biopsy TESE
Controlled series of 60 patients
Microsurgical versus conventional single-biopsy testicular sperm extraction in nonobstructive azoospermia: a prospective controlled study
Verza Jr S, Esteves SC. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (3): S53
Histology categories pairwise
comparisons P<0.0001
Method P=0.0005
Esteves, 25
Sperm retrieval method and histopathology category
Odds Ratio [95% Confidence
Interval]
Relative Risk [95%
Confidence Interval]
Micro-TESE vs. TESE 3.97 [1.86-8.49] 1.64 [1.18-2.28]
HYPO vs. MA 5.15 [1.16-22.97] 1.61 [0.97-2.68]
HYPO vs. SCO 29.75 [6.96-127.27] 5.25 [2.53-10.91]
MA vs. SCO 5.77 [1.41-23.62] 3.26 [1.38-7.68]
Microsurgical vs Single-Biopsy TESE in Nonobstructive Azoospermia
Microsurgical versus conventional single-biopsy testicular sperm extraction in nonobstructive azoospermia: a prospective controlled study
Verza Jr S, Esteves SC. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (3): S53
Esteves, 26
Conventional TESE vs Micro-TESE Tissue Removal
Esteves, 27
Tissue Removal Approach Open Large
Single-Biopsy TESE
Micro-TESE
P-value
Success Rate 15/60 (25%) 27/60 (45%) 0.02 Tissue Removed (mg) 65 ± 25 8.9 ± 2.5 <0.01
HYPO 58 ± 12 4.2 ± 1.9 MA 68 ± 17 10.1 ± 3.8
SCO 51 ± 9 7.5 ± 3.7
Microsurgical versus conventional single-biopsy testicular sperm extraction in nonobstructive azoospermia: a prospective controlled study
Verza Jr S, Esteves SC. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (3): S53
Microsurgical vs Single-Biopsy TESE in Nonobstructive Azoospermia
Esteves, 28
Chance of Sperm Retrieval by NOA Diagnosis
Cryptorchidism 52-74% Varicocele 63-68% Post-infection (mumps, etc.) 67% Torsion >50% Post-radiation/chemotherapy 55-75% Genetic (Klinefelter, Y microdeletion) 0-75% Idiopathic 50-60%
Esteves et al., Fertil Steril 94; 2010; Raman and Schlegel. J Urol.170; 2003; Hopps et al. Hum Reprod. 180, 2003;
Damani et al. JCO. 15; 2002 Esteves, 29
Micro-TESE Results Androfert Experience (2002-2010)
No. of Patients 255 % Retrieval Rate 51.1 No. ICSI cycles 328 Mean ± SD Patient Age
Male Female
37.0 ± 7.6 32.4 ± 4.7
Mean ± No. Injected Oocytes 9.8 ± 7.2 Mean ± %2PN Fertilization 43.7 ± 27.9 No. Transfer 298 Mean ± No. Embryos Transferred 2.4 No. Clinical Pregnancy (%) 86 (28.9) No. Live birth (%) 64 (21.5)
Esteves, 30
No. of Babies Born 102
No. Multiple Deliveries (%) 29 (28.4)
Mean ± SD Gestational Age 35.5 ± 2.7
Mean ± Birth Weight 2532 ± 601
Gender ratio; boy/girl 1.0/1.3
No. Perinatal Deaths 6 (5.9)
No. Birth Defects (%) 3 (2.9)
Micro-TESE Results Androfert Experience (2002-2010)
Esteves, 31
Esteves, 32
Subjective (by appearance) identification of sperm-producing tubules
Objective (by size) identification of sperm-producing tubules
Micro-TESE: Current Research
Micro-TESE Objective Identification of Sperm-producing Tubules
Esteves, 33
Maturation Arrest
Normal
Verza Jr & Esteves, Atlas of Human Reproduction, SBRH 2012
Sertoli cell-only
Hypospermatogenesis
Verza Jr & Esteves, Atlas of Human Reproduction, SBRH 2012
Median 25%-75% 5%-95% Raw Data
yes No
Presence of Sperm
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
420M
ax. T
ubul
e Di
amet
er
N = 54; Tubule Diameter: KW-H(1;54) = 25,213; p < 0,0001
Tubule Diameter grouped by Presence of Sperm
Esteves, 37
Esteves, 38
Intraoperative Objective Identification
of Sperm-producing Tubules
Computer-assisted Sperm Retrieval
Objective Identification of Sperm-producing Tubules
1. Minimize trauma/damage to the testis: minimal tissue excision.
2. Decrease operative time.
3. Facilitate laboratory tissue processing and sperm search.
4. Improve success.
Esteves, 39
Conclusions
Nonobstructive azoospermia: Most severe form of male infertility Not synonymous of sterility Current testing not predictive of successful SR.
Heterogenic pattern of sperm production in NOA: Geographic location unpredictable
Microsurgical-guided Testicular Sperm Extraction: Significantly higher SRR and chance of fatherhod for men with NOA
Esteves, 40