Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical Treatment for Male Infertility

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Male Infertility

  • 2064 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Vital and Health Statistics, series 23, no.26, CDC. http://www.cdc.gov. Accessed 10 Dec 2009.

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schlegel PN. Testicular sperm extraction: microdissection improves sperm yield with minimal tissue excision. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:131–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Goldstein M, Eid JF. Elevation of intratesticular and scrotal skin surface temperature in men with varicocele. J Urol. 1989;142:743–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chehval MJ, Purcell MH. Varicocelectomy: incidence of external vein involvement in the clinical varicocele. Urology. 1992;39:573–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Agarwal A, Prabakaran S, Allamaneni SS. Relationship between oxidative stress, varicocele and infertility: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;12:630–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Jarow JP. Effects of varicocele on male fertility. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7:59–64.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Redmon JB, Carey P, Pryor JL. Varicocele-the most common cause of male factor infertility? Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8:53–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kantartzi PD, Goulis ChD, Goulis GD, et al. Male infertility and varicocele: myths and reality. Hippokratia. 2007;11:99–104.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Steckel J, Dicker AP, Goldstein M. Relationship between varicocele size and response to varicocelectomy. J Urol. 1993;149:769–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Marmar JL. The pathophysiology of varicoceles in the light of current molecular and genetic information. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7:461–72.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Marks JL, McMahon R, Lipshultz LI. Predictive parameters of successful varicocele repair. J Urol. 1986;136:609–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kondo Y, Ishikawa T, Yamaguchi K, et al. Predictors of improved seminal characteristics by varicocele repair. Andrologia. 2009;41:20–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Weedin JW, Khera M, Lipshultz LI. Varicocele Repair in Patients with Nonobstructive Azoospermia—A Meta-Analysis. J Urol. 2010;183:2309–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Esteves SC. Editorial comment. J Urol. 2010;183:2315.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Anderson JE, Warner L, Jamieson DJ, et al. Contraception. 2010;82:230–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Vasectomia no Brasil. Veja online; http://veja.abril.com.br/041000/p_084.html. Accessed 3 Oct 2010.

  37. Lipshultz LI, Rumohr JA, Bennet RC. Techniques for vasectomy reversal. Urol Clin N Am. 2009;36:375–832.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hernandez J, Sabanegh ES. Repeat vasectomy reversal after initial failure. J Urol. 1999;161:1153–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Eggert-Kruse W, Christmann M, Gerhard I, et al. Circulating antisperm antibodies and fertility prognosis: a prospective study. Hum Reprod. 1989;4:513–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Chan PT, Goldstein M. Superior outcomes of microsurgical vasectomy reversal in men with the same female partners. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1371–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Sharlip I. Absence of fluid during vasectomy reversal has no prognostic significance. J Urol. 1996;155:365–9.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. Fleming C. Robot-assisted vasovasostomy. Urol Clin N Am. 2004;31:769–72.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Parekattil SJ, Cohen MS. Robotic surgery in male infertility and chronic orchialgia. Curr Opin Urol. 2010;20:75–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Silber S. Microscopic vasoepididymostomy: specific microanastomosis to the epididymal tubule. Fertil Steril. 1978;30:565–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Thomas Jr AJ. Vasoepididymostomy. Urol Clin North Am. 1987;14:527–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Berger RE. Triangulation end-to-side vasoepididymostomy. J Urol. 1998;159:1951–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Marmar JL. Modified vasoepididymostomy with simultaneous double needle placement, tubulotomy and tubular invagination. J Urol. 2000;163:483–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Meacham RB, Hellerstein DK, Lipshultz LI. Evaluation and treatment of ejaculatory duct obstruction in the infertile male. Fertil Steril. 1993;59:393–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Hellerstein DK, Meacham RB, Lipshultz LI. Transrectal ultrasound and partial ejaculatory duct obstruction in male infertility. Urology. 1992;39:449–52.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Jones TR, Zagoria RJ, Jarow JP. Transrectal US-guided seminal vesiculography. Radiology. 1997;205:276–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Jarow JP, Espeland MA, Lipshultz LI. Evaluation of the azoospermic patient. J Urol. 1989;142:62–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Farley S, Barnes R. Stenosis of ejaculatory ducts treated by endoscopic resection. J Urol. 1973;109:664–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Craft I, Tsirigotis M. Simplified recovery, preparation and cryopreservation of testicular spermatozoa. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:1623–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Okada H, Dobashi M, Yamazaki T, et al. Conventional versus microdissection testicular sperm extraction for nonobstructive azoospermia. J Urol. 2002;168:1063–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Schlegel PN. Causes of azoospermia and their management. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2004;16:561–72.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. De Braekeleer M, Dao TN. Cytogenetic studies in male infertility: a review. Hum Reprod. 1991;6:245–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Dhabuwala CB, Hamid S, Moghisi KS. Clinical versus subclinical varicocele: improvement in fertility after varicocelectomy. Fertil Steril. 1992;57:854–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Jee SH, Hong YK. One-layer vasovasostomy: microsurgical versus loupe-assisted. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2308–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Schlesinger MH, Wilets IF, Nagler HM. Treatment outcome after varicocelectomy. A critical analysis. Urol Clin North Am. 1994;21:517–29.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Elbendary MA, Elbadry AM. Right subclinical varicocele: how to manage in infertile patients with clinical left varicocele? Fertil Steril. 2009;92:2050–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Schlegel PN, Kaufmann J. Role of varicocelectomy in men with nonobstructive azoospermia. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1585–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Robb P, Sandlow JI. Cost-effectiveness of vasectomy reversal. Urol Clin North Am. 2009;36:391–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Malizia BA, Hacker MR, Penzias AS. Cumulative live-birth rates after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:236–43.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Chan PT, Brandell RA, Goldstein M. Prospective analysis of outcomes after microsurgical intussusceptions vasoepididymostomy. BJU Int. 2005;96:598–601.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Marmar JL, Sharlip I, Goldstein M. Results of vasovasostomy or vasoepididymostomy after failed percutaneous epididymal sperm aspirations. J Urol. 2008;179:1506–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Kolettis PN. Restructuring Reconstructive Techniques—advances in reconstructive techniques. Urol Clin N Am. 2008;35:229–34.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Ho KLV, Witte MN, Bird ET, et al. Fibrin glue assisted 3-suture vasovasostomy. J Urol. 2005;174:1360–363.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Parekattil SJ, Atalah HN, Cohen MS. Video technique for human robot-assisted microsurgical vasovasostomy. J Endourol. 2010;24:511–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Schiff J, Li PS, Goldstein M. Robotic microsurgical vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy in rats. Int J Med Robot. 2005;1:122–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Onur MR, Orhan I, Firdolas F, et al. Clinical and radiological evaluation of ejaculatory duct obstruction. Arch Androl. 2007;53:179–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. Carpi A, Sabanegh E, Mechanick J. Controversies in the management of nonobstructive Azoospermia. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:963–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Tesarik J. Paternal effects on cell division in the human preimplantation embryo. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10:370–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Alukal JP, Lamb DJ. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)—what are the risks? Urol Clin North Am. 2008;35:277–88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Male Reproduction, ANDROFERT, Andrology and Human Reproduction Clinic, Av. Dr. Heitor Penteado, 1464, Campinas, SP, 13075-460, Brazil

    Sandro C. Esteves MD, PhD

  2. Center for Male Reproduction, ANDROFERT, Andrology & Human Reproduction Clinic, Av. Dr. Heitor Penteado, 1464, Campinas, SP, 13075-460, Brazil

    Ricardo Miyaoka MD

Authors
  1. Sandro C. Esteves MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ricardo Miyaoka MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandro C. Esteves MD, PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Florida, Director, Robotic Surgery, Winter Haven Hospital &, 200 Avenue F. N.E., Winter Haven, 33881, Florida, USA

    Sijo J. Parekattil

  2. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Urology, Cleveland Clinic, Euclid Avenue 9500, Cleveland, 44195, Ohio, USA

    Ashok Agarwal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Esteves, S.C., Miyaoka, R. (2012). Surgical Treatment for Male Infertility. In: Parekattil, S., Agarwal, A. (eds) Male Infertility. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3335-4_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3335-4_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-3334-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-3335-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation