The efficacy of repeat percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration procedures.

PURPOSE: The development of intracytoplasmic sperm injection spawned new methods of sperm retrieval for men with obstructive azoospermia who did not want to undergo reconstruction of the seminal tract. There is a wide array of different procedures that may be performed in these cases, for instance percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration (PESA) and microepididymal sperm aspiration. However, concerns regarding the presence of sperm in a second PESA attempt due to possible fibrosis have been suggested by many authors. We evaluate if it is worthwhile to repeat percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of 20 patients (23 attempts) who underwent repeat PESA from January 1996 to September 2000 for assisted reproductive technique purposes were reviewed. In all patients the repeat procedure was performed on the same side as the previous PESA. Data were collected on patient age, presence of motile sperm during PESA, epididymal side, pregnancies and abortion rates. RESULTS: Mean patient age +/- SD was 32.4 +/- 5.6 years. One patient was excluded from our analysis due to lack of information on the chart regarding the side of the procedure. Repeat PESA was performed in the right epididymis in 12 attempts and in the left in 10. Of the remaining 19 patients 14 (73.68%) did not and 5 (26.3%) have sperm in the epididymal fluid. In these 5 patients 8 repeat PESA procedures were performed (3 procedures in 1 and motile sperm was always found (8 of 22 attempts, 36.4%). Three patients achieved pregnancy with the motile sperm retrieved from the repeat PESA (3 of 8 repeat attempts, 37.5%). No abortions were detected. CONCLUSIONS: More than a third of repeat PESA attempts resulted in the presence of motile sperm. Before performing testicular sperm aspiration or extraction in patients who have undergone previous PESA without achieving pregnancy, repeat PESA may be done. Further attempts should be added in the future to confirm these results.

Outcome of in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic injection of epididymal and testicular sperm obtained from patients with obstructive and nonobstructive azoospermia.

PURPOSE: We assessed fertilization, pregnancy and miscarriage rates in patients with obstructive and nonobstructive azoospermia who underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From June 1996 to March 2000, 166 consecutive patients (198 intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles) with azoospermia were studied. Of these 198 cycles 68 were performed due to nonobstructive azoospermia using testicular spermatozoa and 130 were performed due to obstructive azoospermia using epididymal spermatozoa. RESULTS: The normal (2 pronuclei) and abnormal (1 plus 3 pronuclei) fertilization rates for obstructive and nonobstructive azoospermia were 60.5% and 16.6%, and 54% and 16.4%, respectively (p >0.05). The pregnancy rate per cycle, pregnancy rate per patient and abortion rate were 30%, 39.8% and 28% for obstructive azoospermia, and 22%, 28.3% and 40% for nonobstructive azoospermia (p <0.05). The normal and abnormal fertilization rates were 58.7% and 21.4% for percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration (PESA), 62.3% and 10.4% for PESA plus testicular sperm aspiration (TESA), and 57.3% and 14.5% for TESA, respectively (p >0.05). The pregnancy rate per cycle, pregnancy rate per patient and abortion rate were 34.6%, 54.5% and 11.1% for PESA, 37.5%, 37.5% and 33.3% for PESA plus TESA, and 26.1%, 31% and 41% for TESA, respectively (PESA versus PESA plus TESA p >0.05, and PESA and PESA plus TESA versus TESA p <0.05). Epididymal or testicular motile sperm resulted in a lower abortion rate than epididymal or testicular immotile sperm (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: No differences were noted in the fertilization and embryo transfer rates irrespective of etiology (obstructive versus nonobstructive) and type of spermatozoa (epididymal versus testicular). Testicular sperm retrieval results in lower fertilization and pregnancy rates as well as higher abortion rates than epididymal sperm retrieval.