Advertisement

Surgical Treatment for Male Infertility

  • Sandro C. EstevesEmail author
  • Ricardo Miyaoka
Chapter

Abstract

Infertility complaint is common in the urologic office. The role of the urologist in this context cannot be underestimated, since he/she is trained to diagnose, to counsel, to provide medical or surgical treatment whenever possible, or to correctly refer the male patient for assisted conception. The urologist can also be part of the multi-professional reproductive team in the assisted reproduction unit, being responsible for the above-cited tasks as well as for the sperm surgical retrieval from the epididymis or testicle. Two major breakthroughs occurred in the area of male infertility with regard to treatment. The first was the development of microsurgery which increased success rates for reconstruction of the reproductive tract. The second was the development of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and the demonstration that spermatozoa retrieved from either the epididymis or the testis were capable of fertilization and pregnancy. Thereafter, several sperm retrieval methods have been developed to collect epididymal and testicular sperm for ICSI in azoospermic men. Microsurgery was incorporated to this armamentarium, either for collection of sperm from the epididymis in men with obstructive azoospermia or from the testicle in those with nonobstructive azoospermia. This chapter describes the most common surgical treatments for male infertility. It includes not only the reconstructive interventions for the male reproductive system but also the sperm retrieval techniques to be used in cases of obstructive (OA) and nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA). A critical commentary, based on the authors’ experience in the surgical management of infertile males, and a review of important publications from the last 5 years are included. Finally, a list of key issues is provided to summarize the current knowledge in this area.

Keywords

Male infertility Varicocele repair Vasovasostomy Vasoepididymostomy Sperm retrieval techniques Microsurgery Surgical treatments for infertility Intracytoplasmic sperm injection 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to Mrs. Fabiola Bento for her editorial assistance and to Dr. Marcelo Coccuza for providing his personal observations regarding reconstructive surgery.

References

  1. 1.
    Vital and Health Statistics, series 23, no.26, CDC. http://www.cdc.gov. Accessed 10 Dec 2009.
  2. 2.
    Silber S, Nagy ZP, Liu J, et al. Conventional in-vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection for patients requiring microsurgical sperm aspiration. Hum Reprod. 1994;9:1705–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Devroey P, Liu J, Nagy ZP, et al. Pregnancies after testicular extraction (TESE) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in non-obstructive azoospermia. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:1457–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schlegel PN. Testicular sperm extraction: microdissection improves sperm yield with minimal tissue excision. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:131–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldstein M, Eid JF. Elevation of intratesticular and scrotal skin surface temperature in men with varicocele. J Urol. 1989;142:743–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chehval MJ, Purcell MH. Varicocelectomy: incidence of external vein involvement in the clinical varicocele. Urology. 1992;39:573–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nistal M, Gonzalez-Peramato P, Serrano A, et al. Physiopathology of the infertile testicle. Etiopathogenesis of varicocele. Arch Esp Urol. 2004;57:883–904.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agarwal A, Prabakaran S, Allamaneni SS. Relationship between oxidative stress, varicocele and infertility: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:630–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    World Health Organization. The influence of varicocele on parameters of fertility in a large group of men presenting to infertility clinics. Fertil Steril. 1992;57:1289–93.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jarow JP. Effects of varicocele on male fertility. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7:59–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marmar JL, Agarwal A, Prabaskan S, et al. Reassessing the value of varicocelectomy as a treatment for male subfertility with a new meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:639–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Esteves SC, Oliveira FV, Bertolla RP. Clinical outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in infertile men with treated and untreated clinical varicocele. J Urol. 2010;184:1241–586.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Redmon JB, Carey P, Pryor JL. Varicocele-the most common cause of male factor infertility? Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8:53–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Esteves S. Infertilidade masculina. In: Rhoden EL, editor. Urologia no consultório. 1ªth ed. Porto Alegre, RS: Artmed Editora; 2009. p. 470–500.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Libman J, Jarvi K, Lo K, Zini A. Beneficial effect of microsurgical varicocelectomy is superior for men with bilateral versus unilateral repair. J Urol. 2006;176:2602–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gat Y, Bachar GN, Zukerman Z, et al. Physical examination may miss the diagnosis of bilateral varicocele: a comparative study of 4 diagnostic modalities. J Urol. 2004;172:1414–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Geatti O, Gasparini D, Shapiro B. A comparison of scintigraphy, thermography, ultrasound and phlebography in grading of clinical varicocele. J Nucl Med. 1991;32:2092–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yamamoto M, Hibi H, Hirata Y, et al. Effect of varicocelectomy on sperm parameters and pregnancy rate in patients with subclinical varicocele: a randomized prospective controlled study. J Urol. 1996;155:1636–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kantartzi PD, Goulis ChD, Goulis GD, et al. Male infertility and varicocele: myths and reality. Hippokratia. 2007;11:99–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Esteves SC, Glina S. Recovery of spermatogenesis after microsurgical subinguinal varicocele repair in azoospermic men based on testicular histology. Int Braz J Urol. 2005;31:541–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Steckel J, Dicker AP, Goldstein M. Relationship between varicocele size and response to varicocelectomy. J Urol. 1993;149:769–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marmar JL. The pathophysiology of varicoceles in the light of current molecular and genetic information. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7:461–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marks JL, McMahon R, Lipshultz LI. Predictive parameters of successful varicocele repair. J Urol. 1986;136:609–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yoshida K, Kitahara S, Chiba K, et al. Predictive indicators of successful varicocele repair in men with infertility. Int J Fertil. 2000;45:279–84.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cayan S, Lee D, Black LD, et al. Response to varicocelectomy in oligospermic men with and without defined genetic infertility. Urology. 2001;57:530–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pryor JL, Kent-First M, Muallem A, et al. Microdeletions in the Y chromosome of infertile men. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:534–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kondo Y, Ishikawa T, Yamaguchi K, et al. Predictors of improved seminal characteristics by varicocele repair. Andrologia. 2009;41:20–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weedin JW, Khera M, Lipshultz LI. Varicocele Repair in Patients with Nonobstructive Azoospermia—A Meta-Analysis. J Urol. 2010;183:2309–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Esteves SC. Editorial comment. J Urol. 2010;183:2315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cayan S, Shavakhabov S, Kadioglu A. Treatment of palpable varicocele review in infertile men: a meta-analysis to define the best technique. J Androl. 2009;30:33–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sautter T, Sulser T, Suter S, et al. Treatment of varicocele: a prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopy versus antegrade sclerotherapy. Eur Urol. 2002;41:398–400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Al-Kandari AM, Shabaan H, Ibrahim HM, et al. Comparison of outcomes of different varicocelectomy techniques: open inguinal, laparoscopic, and subinguinal microscopic varicocelectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Urology. 2007;69:417–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hopps CV, Lemer ML, Schlegel PN, et al. Intraoperative varicocele anatomy: a microscopic study of the inguinal versus subinguinal approach. J Urol. 2003;170:2366–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Anderson JE, Warner L, Jamieson DJ, et al. Contraception. 2010;82:230–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Belker AM, Thomas AJ, Fuchs EF, et al. Results of 1469 microsurgical vasectomy reversals by the Vasovasostomy Study Group. J Urol. 1991;145:505–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vasectomia no Brasil. Veja online; http://veja.abril.com.br/041000/p_084.html. Accessed 3 Oct 2010.
  37. 37.
    Lipshultz LI, Rumohr JA, Bennet RC. Techniques for vasectomy reversal. Urol Clin N Am. 2009;36:375–832.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Boorjian S, Lipkin M, Goldstein M. The impact of obstructive interval and sperm granuloma on outcome of vasectomy reversal. J Urol. 2004;171:304–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Parekattil SJ, Kuang W, Agarwal A, et al. Model to predict if a vasoepididymostomy will be required for vasectomy reversal. J Urol. 2005;173:1681–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hernandez J, Sabanegh ES. Repeat vasectomy reversal after initial failure. J Urol. 1999;161:1153–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bolduc S, Fischer MA, Deceunik G, et al. Factors predicting overall success: a review of 74 microsurgical vasovasostomies. Can Urol Assoc J. 2007;1:388–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Carbone Jr DJ, Shah A, Thomas Jr AJ, Agarwal A. Partial obstruction, not antisperm antibodies, causing infertility after vasovasostomy. J Urol. 1998;159:827–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chawla A, O’Brien J, Lisi M, et al. Should all urologists performing vasectomy reversal be able to perform vasoepididymostomy if required? J Urol. 2004;172:829–30.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Eggert-Kruse W, Christmann M, Gerhard I, et al. Circulating antisperm antibodies and fertility prognosis: a prospective study. Hum Reprod. 1989;4:513–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chan PT, Goldstein M. Superior outcomes of microsurgical vasectomy reversal in men with the same female partners. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1371–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hinz S, Rais-Bahrami S, Kempkensteffen C, et al. Fertility rates following vasectomy reversal: importance of age of the female partner. Urol Int. 2008;81:416–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gerrard Jr ER, Sandlow JI, Oster RA, et al. Effect of female partner age on pregnancy rates after vasectomy reversal. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:1340–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schiff J, Chan P, Li PS, et al. Outcome and late failures compared in 4 techniques of microsurgical vasoepididymostomy in 153 consecutive men. J Urol. 2005;174:651–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sharlip I. Absence of fluid during vasectomy reversal has no prognostic significance. J Urol. 1996;155:365–9.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kolettis PN, Burns JR, Nangia AK, et al. Outcomes for vasovasostomy performed when only sperm parts are present in the vasal fluid. J Androl. 2006;27:565–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Boyle KE, Thomas Jr AJ, Marmar JL, et al. Sperm harvesting and cryopreservation during vasectomy reversal is not cost effective. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:961–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sharlip ID. Microsurgical vasovasostomy: modified one-layer technique. In: Goldstein M, editor. Surgery of male infertility. 1st ed. New York, NY: WB Saunders; 1995. p. 67–76.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Belker AM. Microsurgical vasovasostomy: two-layer technique. In: Goldstein M, editor. Surgery of male infertility. 1st ed. New York, NY: WB Saunders; 1995. p. 61–76.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Goldstein M. Vasovasostomy: surgical approach, decision making, and multilayer microdot technique. In: Goldestein M, editor. Surgery of male infertility. 1st ed. New York, NY: WB Saunders; 1995. p. 46–60.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fleming C. Robot-assisted vasovasostomy. Urol Clin N Am. 2004;31:769–72.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Parekattil SJ, Cohen MS. Robotic surgery in male infertility and chronic orchialgia. Curr Opin Urol. 2010;20:75–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Silber S. Microscopic vasoepididymostomy: specific microanastomosis to the epididymal tubule. Fertil Steril. 1978;30:565–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Thomas Jr AJ. Vasoepididymostomy. Urol Clin North Am. 1987;14:527–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Berger RE. Triangulation end-to-side vasoepididymostomy. J Urol. 1998;159:1951–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Marmar JL. Modified vasoepididymostomy with simultaneous double needle placement, tubulotomy and tubular invagination. J Urol. 2000;163:483–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Chan PT, Li PS, Goldstein M. Microsurgical vasoepididymostomy: a prospective randomized study of 3 intussusception techniques in rats. J Urol. 2003;169:1924–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Netto Jr NR, Esteves SC, Neves PA. Transurethral resection of partially obstructed ejaculatory ducts: seminal parameters and pregnancy outcomes according to the etiology of obstruction. J Urol. 1998;159:2048–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Meacham RB, Hellerstein DK, Lipshultz LI. Evaluation and treatment of ejaculatory duct obstruction in the infertile male. Fertil Steril. 1993;59:393–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Carter SS, Shinohara K, Lipshultz LI. Transrectal ultrasonography in disorders of the seminal vesicles and ejaculatory ducts. Urol Clin N Am. 1989;16:773–90.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hellerstein DK, Meacham RB, Lipshultz LI. Transrectal ultrasound and partial ejaculatory duct obstruction in male infertility. Urology. 1992;39:449–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Jones TR, Zagoria RJ, Jarow JP. Transrectal US-guided seminal vesiculography. Radiology. 1997;205:276–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Jarow JP, Espeland MA, Lipshultz LI. Evaluation of the azoospermic patient. J Urol. 1989;142:62–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Farley S, Barnes R. Stenosis of ejaculatory ducts treated by endoscopic resection. J Urol. 1973;109:664–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Craft I, Tsirigotis M, Bennett V, et al. Percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the management of infertility due to obstructive azoospermia. Fertil Steril. 1995;63:1038–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Craft I, Tsirigotis M. Simplified recovery, preparation and cryopreservation of testicular spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:1623–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Okada H, Dobashi M, Yamazaki T, et al. Conventional versus microdissection testicular sperm extraction for nonobstructive azoospermia. J Urol. 2002;168:1063–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Tsujimura A, Matsumiya K, Miyagawa Y, et al. Conventional multiple or microdissection testicular sperm extraction: a comparative study. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:2924–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ramasamy R, Lin K, Gosden LV, et al. High serum FSH levels in men with nonobstructive azoospermia does not affect success of microdissection testicular sperm extraction. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:590–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Esteves SC, Verza Jr S, Gomes AP. Successful retrieval of testicular spermatozoa by microdissection (micro-TESE) in nonobstructive azoospermia is related to testicular histology. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:S354.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Schlegel PN. Causes of azoospermia and their management. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2004;16:561–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Sharlip ID, Jarow J, Belker AM, et al. Report on Evaluation of the Azoospermic Male. AUA Best Practice Policy and ASRM Practice Committee Report. American Urological Association, April 2001.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Esteves SC, Verza S, Prudencio C, Seol B. Sperm retrieval rates (SRR) in nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA) are related to testicular histopathology results but not to the etiology of azoospermia. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(Suppl):S132.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Male Infertility Best Practice Policy Committee of the American Urological Association, Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Report on evaluation of the azoospermic male. Fertil Steril. 2006;86 Suppl 1:S210–215.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    De Braekeleer M, Dao TN. Cytogenetic studies in male infertility: a review. Hum Reprod. 1991;6:245–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Brandell RA, Mielnik A, Liotta D, et al. AZFb deletions predict the absence of spermatozoa with testicular sperm extraction: preliminary report of a prognostic genetic test. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:2812–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Hopps CV, Mielnik A, Goldstein M, et al. Detection of sperm in men with Y chromosome microdeletions of the AZFa, AZFb and AZFc regions. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:1660–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Nagler HM, Luntz RK, Martinis FG. Varicocele. In: Lipshultz LI, Howards SS, editors. Infertility in the Male. 3rd ed. St Louis, Missouri: Mosby; 1997. p. 336–59.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Dhabuwala CB, Hamid S, Moghisi KS. Clinical versus subclinical varicocele: improvement in fertility after varicocelectomy. Fertil Steril. 1992;57:854–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Jee SH, Hong YK. One-layer vasovasostomy: microsurgical versus loupe-assisted. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2308–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    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.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Schneider DT, Gomes AP, Verza Jr S, et al. Optimal time interval for intracytoplasmic sperm injection after administration of human chorionic gonadotrophin in severe male factor infertility. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:S155.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Prudencio C, Seol B, Esteves SC. Reproductive potential of azoospermic men undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection is dependent on the type of azoospermia. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(Suppl):S232–3.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Chan PT, Wright EJ, Goldstein M. Incidence and postoperative outcomes of accidental ligation of the testicular artery during microsurgical varicocelectomy. J Urol. 2005;173:482–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Cocuzza M, Pagani R, Coelho R, et al. The systematic use of intraoperative vascular Doppler ultrasound during microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy improves precise identification and preservation of testicular blood supply. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:2396–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Schlesinger MH, Wilets IF, Nagler HM. Treatment outcome after varicocelectomy. A critical analysis. Urol Clin North Am. 1994;21:517–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Colpi GM, Carmignani L, Nerva F, et al. Surgical treatment of varicocele by a subinguinal approach combined with antegrade intraoperative sclerotherapy of venous vessels. BJU Int. 2006;97:142–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Shindel AW, Yan Y, Naughton CK. Does the number and size of veins ligated at left-sided microsurgical subinguinal varicocelectomy affect semen analysis outcomes? Urology. 2007;69:1176–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Matkov TG, Zenni M, Sandlow J, et al. Preoperative semen analysis as a predictor of seminal improvement following varicocelectomy. Fertil Steril. 2001;75:63–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Smit M, Romijn JC, Wildhagen MF, et al. Decreased sperm DNA fragmentation after surgical varicocelectomy is associated with increased pregnancy rate. J Urol. 2010;183:270–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Jeng SY, Wu SM, Lee JD. Cadmium accumulation and metallothionein overexpression in internal spermatic vein of patients with varicocele. Urology. 2009;73:1231–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Cocuzza M, Cocuzza MA, Bragais FM, Agarwal A. The role of varicocele repair in the new era of assisted reproductive technology. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2008;63:395–404.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Zheng YQ, Gao X, Li ZJ, et al. Efficacy of bilateral and left varicocelectomy in infertile men with left clinical and right subclinical varicoceles: a comparative study. Urology. 2009;73:1236–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Elbendary MA, Elbadry AM. Right subclinical varicocele: how to manage in infertile patients with clinical left varicocele? Fertil Steril. 2009;92:2050–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Schlegel PN, Kaufmann J. Role of varicocelectomy in men with nonobstructive azoospermia. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1585–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Inci K, Hascicek M, Kara O, et al. Sperm retrieval and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in men with nonobstructive azoospermia, and treated and untreated varicocele. J Urol. 2009;182:1500–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Meng MV, Greene KL, Turek PJ. Surgery or assisted reproduction? A decision analysis of treatment costs in male infertility. J Urol. 2005;174:1926–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Ficarra V, Cerruto MA, Liguori G, et al. Treatment of varicocele in subfertile men: the cochrane review—a contrary opinion. Eur Urol. 2006;49:258–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Agarwal A, Deepinder F, Cocuzza M, et al. Efficacy of Varicocelectomy in Improving Semen Parameters: new meta-analytical approach. Urology. 2007;70:532–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Zini A, Blumenfeld A, Libman J, et al. Beneficial effect of microsurgical varicocelectomy on human sperm DNA integrity. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1018–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Moskovtsev SI, Lecker I, Mullen JB, et al. Cause-specific treatment in patients with high sperm DNA damage resulted in significant DNA improvement. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2009;55:109–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Lee R, Li PS, Goldstein M, Tanrikut C, et al. A decision analysis of treatments for obstructive azoospermia. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2043–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Robb P, Sandlow JI. Cost-effectiveness of vasectomy reversal. Urol Clin North Am. 2009;36:391–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Male Infertility Best Practice Policy Committee of the American Urological Association, Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Report on the management of infertility due to obstructive azoospermia. Fertil Steril. 2008;90 Suppl 3:S121–4.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Malizia BA, Hacker MR, Penzias AS. Cumulative live-birth rates after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:236–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Hsieh MH, Meng MV, Turek PJ. Markov modeling of vasectomy reversal and ART for infertility: how do obstructive interval and female partner age influence cost effectiveness? Fertil Steril. 2007;88:840–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Chan PT, Brandell RA, Goldstein M. Prospective analysis of outcomes after microsurgical intussusceptions vasoepididymostomy. BJU Int. 2005;96:598–601.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Marmar JL, Sharlip I, Goldstein M. Results of vasovasostomy or vasoepididymostomy after failed percutaneous epididymal sperm aspirations. J Urol. 2008;179:1506–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Kolettis PN. Restructuring Reconstructive Techniques—advances in reconstructive techniques. Urol Clin N Am. 2008;35:229–34.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Ho KLV, Witte MN, Bird ET, et al. Fibrin glue assisted 3-suture vasovasostomy. J Urol. 2005;174:1360–363.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Vrijhof EJ, De Bruine A, Zwinderman A, et al. The use of newly designed nonabsorbable polymeric stent in reconstructing the vas deferens: a feasibility study in New Zealand white rabbits. BJU Int. 2005;95:1081–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Parekattil SJ, Atalah HN, Cohen MS. Video technique for human robot-assisted microsurgical vasovasostomy. J Endourol. 2010;24:511–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Schiff J, Li PS, Goldstein M. Robotic microsurgical vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy in rats. Int J Med Robot. 2005;1:122–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Eisenberg ML, Walsh TJ, Garcia MM, et al. Ejaculatory duct manometry in normal men and in patients with ejaculatory duct obstruction. J Urol. 2008;180:255–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Orhan I, Duksal I, Onur R, et al. Technetium Tc 99 m sulphur colloid seminal vesicle scintigraphy: a novel approach for the diagnosis of the ejaculatory duct obstruction. Urology. 2008;71:672–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Onur MR, Orhan I, Firdolas F, et al. Clinical and radiological evaluation of ejaculatory duct obstruction. Arch Androl. 2007;53:179–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Lawler LP, Cosin O, Jarow JP, et al. Transrectal US-guided seminal vesiculography and ejaculatory duct recanalization and balloon dilation for treatment of chronic pelvic pain. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17:169–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Manohar T, Ganpule A, Desai M. Transrectal ultrasound- and fluoroscopic-assisted transurethral incision of ejaculatory ducts: a problem-solving approach to nonmalignant hematospermia due to ejaculatory duct obstruction. Endourol. 2008;22:1531–5.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Van Peperstraten A, Proctor ML, Johnson NP, et al. Techniques for surgical retrieval of sperm prior to ICSI for azoospermia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;3:CD002807.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Nicopoullos JD, Gilling-Smith C, Almeida PA, et al. Use of surgical sperm retrieval in azoospermic men: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:691–701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Kamal A, Fahmy I, Mansour R, et al. Does the outcome of ICSI in cases of obstructive azoospermia depend on the origin of the retrieved spermatozoa or the cause of obstruction? A comparative analysis. Fertil Steril. 2010 Nov;94(6):2135–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Hauser R, Yogev L, Paz G, et al. Comparison of efficacy of two techniques for testicular sperm retrieval in nonobstructive azoospermia: multifocal testicular sperm extraction versus multifocal testicular sperm aspiration. J Androl. 2006;27:28–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Donoso P, Tournaye H, Devroey P. Which is the best sperm retrieval technique for non-obstructive azoospermia? A systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13:539–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Carpi A, Sabanegh E, Mechanick J. Controversies in the management of nonobstructive Azoospermia. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:963–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Schiff JD, Palermo GD, Veeck LL, et al. Success of testicular sperm injection and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in men with Klinefelter syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005;90:6263–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Ramasamy R, Yagan N, Schlegel PN. Structural and functional changes to the testis after conventional versus microdissection testicular sperm extraction. Urology. 2005;65:1190–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Carpi A, Menchini Fabris F, Palego F, et al. Fine-needle and large needle percutaneous aspiration biopsy of the testicle in men with nonobstructive azoospermia: safety and diagnostic performance. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:1029–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Turunc T, Gul U, Haydardedeoglu B, et al. Conventional testicular sperm extraction combined with the microdissection technique in nonobstructive azoospermic patients: a prospective comparative study. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2157–60. Epub 20 Feb 2010.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Tesarik J. Paternal effects on cell division in the human preimplantation embryo. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10:370–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Schlegel PN, Liotta D, Hariprashad J, et al. Fresh testicular sperm from men with nonobstructive azoospermia works best for ICSI. Urology. 2004;64:1069–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Alukal JP, Lamb DJ. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)—what are the risks? Urol Clin North Am. 2008;35:277–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Knoester M, Helmerhorst FM, Vandenbroucke JPM, et al. Artificial Reproductive Techniques Follow-up Project. Cognitive development of singletons born after intracytoplasmic sperm injection compared with in vitro fertilization and natural conception. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:289–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Belva F, Henriet S, Liebaers I, et al. Medical outcome of 8-year-old singleton ICSI children and a spontaneously conceived comparison group. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:506–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Woldringh GH, Besselink DE, Tillema AH, et al. Karyotyping, congenital anomalies and follow-up of children after intracytoplasmic sperm injection with non-ejaculated sperm: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:12–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Male ReproductionANDROFERT, Andrology and Human Reproduction ClinicCampinasBrazil
  2. 2.Center for Male ReproductionANDROFERT, Andrology & Human Reproduction ClinicCampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations