Abstract:STUDY QUESTION:Can microsurgical vasoepididymostomy (MVE) be used to treat azoospermia in men with epididymal obstruction who have had a prior attempt at sperm retrieval with ICSI and failed to achieve a pregnancy?SUMMARY ANSWER:MVE is an effective treatment for epididymal obstruction.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:MVE is an effective treatment for non-vasectomized patients with epididymal obstruction. However, ICSI is the preferred treatment for patients with obstructive azoospermia in some reproductive centers. The clinical pregnancy rate in per ICSI cycle is <40% and more than half of couples need repeated ICSI. Some couples cannot bear the high medical costs or the pain associated with repeated IVF/ICSI. Therefore, MVE may be an alternative treatment for such patients.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION:This retrospective study investigated whether MVE could be used to treat patients with epididymal obstruction and a previous failed ICSI attempt. From January 2009 to July 2012, 268 patients underwent MVE for epididymal obstruction in our center; we included 68 who had experienced failure of at least one cycle of ICSI in this study.MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:We studied 68 patients with obstructive azoospermia who were treated by MVE and had previously undergone surgical sperm recovery and ICSI. The patients were divided into two groups according to the sperm retrieval method used in their ICSI attempt: percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration (PESA) (41.2%, 28/68) and testicular sperm extraction (TESE) (58.8%, 40/68). We evaluated the obstructive causes, patency, pregnancy and live birth rates and the effect of sperm retrieval methods on the outcome of MVE.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:In total, 62 patients (91.2%) showed epididymal obstruction, 2 (2.9%) intratesticular obstruction and 4 (5.9%) vasal obstruction. The mean age was 30.4 ± 5.3 years (range 22-48 years). We followed up 53 (85.5%) at a mean follow-up of 19.8 ± 9.1 months (range 6-43 months). The total patency and natural pregnancy rates were 79.2% (n = 42) and 35.8% (n = 19), respectively. The overall live birth rate was 28.3%. The results of MVE did not differ between the two groups: PESA and TESE.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:A randomized controlled trial comparing pregnancy rates, live birth rates, risks and medical costs of MVE and IVF/ICSI is needed. The size of our sample was limited, so we did not reveal significantly different patency, pregnancy and live birth rates between PESA and TESE. A larger sample size is needed to evaluate the effect of sperm retrieval on patency, pregnancy and live birth rates.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:Epididymal obstruction is the most common obstructive cause in non-vasectomized patients. Data from this study have shown that MVE is an effective therapy for such azoospermic patients with epididymal obstruction and prior failed ICSI for pregnancy. Obstructive causes should be differentiated to select optimal therapy for patients with obstructive azoospermia in reproductive centers.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S):No external funding was used for this study. The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Clinical Outcome of Microsurgical Vasoepididymostomy Versus Epididymal or Testicular Sperm Retrieval Combined with Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection in Obstructive Azoospermia Males.

Microsurgical Vasoepididymostomy is an Effective Treatment for Azoospermic Patients with Epididymal Obstruction and Prior Failure to Achieve Pregnancy by Sperm Retrieval with Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection

Pregnancy and Live Birth Rates after Microsurgical Vasoepididymostomy for Azoospermic Patients with Epididymal Obstruction

Clinical Application of Cross Microsurgical Vasovasostomy in Scrotum for Atypical Obstructive Azoospermia.

AB074. Pregnancy and Live Birth Rates of Microsurgical Vasoepididymostomy for Patients with Obstructive Azoospermia: Analysis in a Large Sample

The Efficacy of Microvasoepididymostomy for the Treatment of Obstructive Azoospermia

Comparison Between the Results of ICSI with Fresh and with Frozen-thawed Sperm Obtained by PESA to Treat Azoospermia

Outcomes of microsurgical vasoepididymostomy using intussusception technique: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Factors Affecting the Results of Microsurgical Vasoepididymostomy

Patency Rates of Microsurgical Vasoepididymostomy for Patients with Idiopathic Obstructive Azoospermia: a Prospective Analysis of Factors Associated with Patency--single-center Experience.

The study of microtraumatic sperm retrieval and intracytoplasmic sperm injection for the obstructive azoospermia

AB149. A Novel Single-Armed Technique for Microsurgical Vasoepididymostomy: the Reverse Single-Armed 2-Suture Longitudinal Intussusception

The effect of BMI and age on the outcomes of microsurgical vasoepididymostomy: a retrospective analysis of 181 patients operated by a single surgeon

Surgical Treatment for Epididymal Obstructive Azoospermia

Sperm Retrieval Rates And Clinical Outcomes For Patients With Different Causes Of Azoospermia Who Undergo Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction-Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection

AB031. Challenge of microsurgery for male infertility in China

Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Versus Conventional In-Vitro Fertilisation for Couples with Infertility with Non-Severe Male Factor: a Multicentre, Open-Label, Randomised Controlled Trial

Impact on Using Cryopreservation of Testicular or Epididymal Sperm Upon Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Outcome in Men with Obstructive Azoospermia: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

[Outcomes of Micro-Tese Combined with ICSI for Non-Obstructive Azoospermia].

Clinical Observation of Loupe-Assisted Intussusception Vasoepididymostomy in the Treatment of Obstructive Azoospermia (analysis of 49 Case Reports)

Clinical Outcomes Of Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction-Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection With Fresh Or Cryopreserved Sperm In Patients With Nonobstructive Azoospermia