S. Kahraman et al., A comparative study of three techniques for the analysis of sperm recovery: Touch-print cytology, wet preparation, and testicular histopathology, J AS REPROD, 18(7), 2001, pp. 357-363
Purpose: The airs of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of simultaneous
testicular touch-print cytology, testicular histopathology; and wet prepar
ation in nonobstructive azoospermic (NOA) males.
Methods: Three hundred and sixty-three males with NOA underwent a multiple
testicular sampling prior to ICSI for histopathologic evaluation, diagnosti
c testicular sperm extraction, and simultaneous touch-print cytology to eva
luate sperm presence or absence. A total of 979 testicular samples were tak
en.
Results: Sperm recovery was achieved in 106 cases (29.2%). Patients with hy
pospemtatogenesis and focal spermatogenesis needed 2.8 and 5.9 biopsies, re
spectively, to retrieve spermatozoa, while in patients with germ cell aplas
ia and maturation arrest, even after eight to nine samples no spermatozoa w
ere recovered. Neither the FSH levels nor the testicular volume was found t
o be significant in the prediction of sperm recovery. If only a single test
is was to be biopsied, 25% of the cases with sperm recovery would have been
missed. The combination of tout h-print cytology with histopathology and w
et preparation increased the accuracy of spermatozoa identification.
Conclusion: Touch print cytology was found to be more predictive than wet p
reparation in the diagnosis of spermatogenesis; moreover, it leas found to
be a quick and easy technique providing an accurate diagnosis in prediction
of sperm recovery.