Get your full text copy in PDF
Geng An, Zihao Zou, Ryan Flannigan, Jianqiao Liu, Hongzi Du, Xin Fu, Feixiang Guo, Wen Zhang
(Reproductive Medicine Center, Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland))
Med Sci Monit 2018; 24: CLR1379-1386
As a safety and efficacy protocol, oocyte vitrification has been widely used in IVF treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of ICSI-ET utilizing vitrified oocytes with sperm obtained from non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) patients via micro-TESE.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 150 NOA patients underwent micro-TESE. Ten patients were unable to ejaculate and refused to accept TESA at the time of oocyte retrieval; later, these patients underwent TESA. A total of 174 obstructive azoospermia (OA) patients underwent TESA. Vitrified oocytes were used with micro-TESE in 35 cycles (group 1), and TESA in 10 cycles (group 2). Fresh oocytes were used with micro-TESE in 38 cycles (group 3) and TESA in 174 cycles (group 4).
RESULTS: The overall sperm retrieval rate of the 150 NOA patients was 48.7% (73/150). A total of 257 cycles of ICSI-ET were conducted with testicular spermatozoa; 212 cycles utilized fresh oocytes and 45 cycles utilized vitrified oocytes. No differences were observed with fertilization (73.8%, 77.2%,72.8%, 73.6%), implantation (33.3%, 34.7%, 33.8%, 37.5%), or clinical pregnancy rates (51.4%, 60%, 52.6%, 51.7%) for groups 1 through 4, respectively (P>0.05). Developmental competence was greatest among couples using sperm obtained via TESA rather than micro-TESE, not dependent on whether vitrified or fresh oocytes were utilized. Fertilization, implantation, and clinical pregnancy rates did not differ between using fresh vs. vitrified oocytes, nor did they differ between using testicular sperm derived from men with NOA vs. men with OA.
CONCLUSIONS: Vitrified oocytes combined with micro-TESE showed similar clinical efficacy when compared with fresh oocytes.