Y-chromosome microdeletions in nonobstructive azoospermia and severe oligozoospermia

The aim of the present work was to present the outcomes of the patients with Y-chromosome microdeletions treated by intracytoplasmic sperm injection （ICSI）, either using fresh （TESE） or frozen-thawed （TESE-C） testicular sperm and ejaculated sperm （EJAC）. The originality of this work resides in the comparisons between the different types of Y-microdeletions （AZFa, AZFb, and AZFc） and treatments, with detailed demographic, stimulation, embryological, clinical, and newborn （NB） outcomes. Of 125 patients with Y-microdeletions, 33 patients presented severe oligozoospermia （18 performed ICSI with ejaculated sperm） and 92 secretory azoospermia （65 went for TESE with 40 having successful sperm retrieval and performed ICSI）. There were 51 TESE treatment cycles and 43 TESE-C treatment cycles, with a birth of 19 NB （2 in AZFa/TESE-C, 12 in AZFc/TESE, and 5 in AZFc/TESE-C）. Of the 29 EJAC cycles, there was a birth of 8 NB （in AZFc）. In TESE and EJAC cycles, there were no significant differences in embryological and clinical parameters. In TESE-C cycles, there was a significant lower oocyte maturity rate, embryo cleavage rate and mean number of embryos transferred in AZFb, and a higher mean number of oocytes and lower fertilization rate in AZFc. In conclusion, although patients with AZFc microdeletions presented a high testicular sperm recovery rate and acceptable clinical outcomes, cases with AZFa and AZFb microdeletions presented a poor prognosis. Due to the reported heredity of microdeletions, patients should be informed about the infertile consequences on NB and the possibility of using preimplantation genetic diagnosis for female sex selection.

Differences and similarities between extremely severe oligozoospermia and cryptozoospermia in intracytoplasmic sperm injection

Patients with extremely severe oligozoospermia （ESO） and cryptozoospermia （CO） are suitable using intracytoplasmic sperm injection （ICSI） as an infertility treatment. However, some andrologists are confused to distinguish ESO and CO in clinic diagnose. This study was designed for the first time to evaluate and compare patients with ESO and CO to determine whether these are useful clinical distinctions. A total of 270 infertile men in our center were classified into four groups as Group nonobstruction azoospermia （NOA, n = 44）, Group ESO （n = 78）, Group CO （n = 40）, and Group obstruction azoospermia （OA, n = 108）. Comparisons of the volume of bilateral testes, the level of follicle stimulating hormone （FSH） and inhibin B were obtained in four groups. Then comparisons of fertilization rates, cleavage rate, and excellent embryos rate were obtained when couples performed ICSh All indexes （volume of bilateral testis, level of FSH and inhibin B） in Groups ESO and CO were no difference, while Groups OA versus NOA, OA versus ESO, and OA versus CO were significant differences （P 〈 0.05）. The rates of fertilization were no differences in Groups ESO and CO while Groups OA versus ESO, OA versus CO were significant differences （P 〈 0.05）. Therefore, the spermatogenic functions in patients with CO and ESO were similar, better than NOA but worse than OA. However, it would be helpful to evaluate their spermatogenesis using testicular biopsies, especially accompanied azoospermia in clinical practice.