Varicocele repair for nonobstructive azoospermia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To evaluate the role of varicocelectomy in the management of patients with varicoceles and nonobstructive azoospermia and to review predictors of successful outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Several small, retrospective, noncontrolled studies have documented return of sperm to the ejaculate in up to 56% of men with nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA) following varicocele repair. Additionally, a recent meta-analysis has reported a 6% spontaneous pregnancy rate in amongst NOA patients who underwent varicocele repair, regardless of surgical technique. Although these observations are promising, evidence for whether or not varicocele repair significantly improves spermatogenesis within an impaired testicle is conflicting. No clear predictors of success following varicocele repair have been identified, but a certain level of spermatogenesis on testicular biopsy appears to be necessary for a desirable outcome after varicocele repair. SUMMARY: The role of varicocelectomy for the treatment on NOA is controversial. Prospective, controlled studies are needed in order to define the true benefit of varicocele repair in men with NOA, in terms of improvement in semen parameters, testicular sperm retrieval rates, and pregnancy outcomes.

A decision analysis of treatments for nonobstructive azoospermia associated with varicocele.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the economic impact of initial treatments for varicocele-associated nonobstructive azoospermia, specifically varicocelectomy versus microsurgical testicular sperm extraction (TESE) with IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). DESIGN: Decision analytic model based on 1) outcomes data from Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) database and peer-reviewed literature and 2) costing data from Medicare Resource-Based Relative Value Scale and sampling of high volume US IVF centers. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENT(S): Simulation with a decision analytic model. INTERVENTION(S): Variation of successful spontaneous live delivery after varicocelectomy versus rate of successful live delivery after IVF/ICSI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cost-effectiveness. RESULT(S): Microsurgical TESE was more cost effective than varicocelectomy. In 1999, initial treatment with microsurgical TESE was more cost effective ($65,515) than varicocelectomy ($76,878). Relative cost-effectiveness was unchanged in 2005: $69,731 versus $79,576. The cost-effectiveness of both treatments improved in relation to projections by inflation. Sensitivity analyses suggest that the relative cost-effectiveness of TESE versus varicocelectomy can only be changed with either substantial improvement in spontaneous live delivery rates after varicocelectomy or with deterioration in IVF success rates. CONCLUSION(S): Microsurgical TESE appears to be more cost effective than varicocelectomy for treatment of varicocele-associated nonobstructive azoospermia when indirect costs are considered. The cost-effectiveness of both treatments has improved with time. These results may be tailored with institution-specific data to allow more individualized results.

A decision analysis of treatments for obstructive azoospermia.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for post-vasectomy obstructive azoospermia include vasectomy reversal, microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration (MESA) or percutaneous testicular sperm extraction (TESE) with IVF/ICSI. We examined the cost-effectiveness of these treatments. METHODS: A decision analytic model was created to simulate treatment. Outcome probabilities were derived from peer-reviewed literature and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies database. Procedural costs were derived from a sampling of high-volume IVF centers and the Medicare Resource Based Relative Value Scale. Indirect costs of complications, lost productivity and multiple gestation pregnancies were considered. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Vasectomy reversal was more cost-effective than either MESA or TESE under all probability conditions. In 1999, vasectomy reversal demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness to TESE and MESA ($19,633 versus $45,637 and $48,055, respectively, equivalent to $25,321 versus $58,858 and $61,977 in 2005 dollars). In 2005, vasectomy reversal ($20,903) remained the most cost-effective treatment over TESE ($54,797) and MESA ($56,861). The cost-effectiveness of all treatments improved over projections by inflation. The relative cost-effectiveness of the therapies was unchanged over time. CONCLUSIONS: Vasectomy reversal appears more cost-effective than percutaneous TESE and MESA for treatment of obstructive azoospermia when the impact of indirect costs is considered. The absolute cost-effectiveness of all therapies improved over time. These results may be tailored with institution-specific data to allow more individualized results.