Morphologic patterns of male infertility in Saudi patients - A University Hospital experience

Citation
Mm. Al-rayess et Ac. Al-rikabi, Morphologic patterns of male infertility in Saudi patients - A University Hospital experience, SAUDI MED J, 21(7), 2000, pp. 625-628
Citations number
13
Categorie Soggetti
General & Internal Medicine
Journal title
SAUDI MEDICAL JOURNAL
ISSN journal
03795284 → ACNP
Volume
21
Issue
7
Year of publication
2000
Pages
625 - 628
Database
ISI
SICI code
0379-5284(200007)21:7<625:MPOMII>2.0.ZU;2-Y
Abstract
Objective: To determine the predominant histopathological patterns seen in the testicular biopsies taken during the investigation of male infertility and to compare the obtained histopathological findings with those seen in o ther similar studies. Methods: This is a retrospective study performed on 230 testicular biopsies which were examined in the Department of Pathology at King Khalid Universi ty Hospital in Riyadh over a period of 10 years. The histopathological find ings were grouped into 8 different morphologic categories. We have utilized a classification that is principally morphologic but that uses known or su spected clinical associations in the case of karyotypic abnormalities and e xcurrent duct obstruction. Results: Of the total of 230 testicular biopsies studied, 72 cases showed n ormal spermatogenesis, of which 50 cases were suspected to be associated wi th excurrent duct obstruction. Germinal cell aplasia with and without focal spermatogenesis was found in about 90 cases. Thirty cases showed hyposperm atogenesis, 25 cases showed maturation arrest and 12 cases showed end stage tubular sclerosis with interstitial fibrosis. Only one case was noted to s how features associated with karyotypic abnormalities. Conclusions: A higher percentage of germinal cell aplasia was noted in this study when compared with other similar investigations including one previo us local study. Possible causes of these discrepancies may be related to se veral factors including environmental effects. The design of the different studies and the criteria used for patient selection or both could also expl ain the cause of these observed differences.