Fresh versus frozen micro-TESE sperm and outcomes
- PMID: 40247725
- PMCID: PMC12112934
- DOI: 10.4103/aja202513
Fresh versus frozen micro-TESE sperm and outcomes
Abstract
The use of fresh versus frozen spermatozoa in men with nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA) undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) has been a debated hot topic among reproductive specialists. Each approach presents distinct advantages and disadvantages, with fresh sperm typically showing superior sperm quality, while frozen sperm offers logistical flexibility and a reliable backup for repeated cycles. This review summarizes the latest advancements in sperm retrieval and cryopreservation techniques, providing practitioners with a comprehensive analysis of each option's strengths and limitations. Comparative studies indicate that, although fresh sperm often has better quality metrics, cryopreservation methods such as vitrification have significantly improved postthaw outcomes, making frozen sperm a viable choice in assisted reproductive technologies (ART). The findings show comparable rates for fertilization, implantation, clinical pregnancy, and live birth between fresh and frozen microdissection testicular sperm extraction (micro-TESE) sperm in many cases, although patient-specific factors such as timing, cost-effectiveness, and procedural convenience should guide the final decision. Ultimately, the choice of using fresh or frozen sperm should align with the individual needs and conditions of patients. This tailored approach, supported by the latest advancements, can optimize ART outcomes and provide personalized reproductive care.
Keywords: cryopreservation; infertility; microdissection testicular sperm extraction; nonobstructive azoospermia; spermatozoa.
Copyright ©The Author(s)(2025).
Conflict of interest statement
All authors declare no competing interests.
Figures

Similar articles
-
Pregnancy outcomes in patients with non-obstructive azoospermia undergoing micro-TESE: comparison of fresh vs. frozen-thawed testicular sperm.J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024 Dec;41(12):3399-3404. doi: 10.1007/s10815-024-03291-7. Epub 2024 Oct 21. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024. PMID: 39432191
-
Microdissection testicular sperm extraction in male partner with non-obstructive azoospermia: Fresh or frozen-thawed sperm for intracytoplasmic sperm injection?J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2025 May;51(5):e16298. doi: 10.1111/jog.16298. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2025. PMID: 40275434
-
Sperm cryopreservation protocol for micro-TESE-retrieved sperm.Asian J Androl. 2025 May 1;27(3):392-398. doi: 10.4103/aja202466. Epub 2024 Sep 10. Asian J Androl. 2025. PMID: 39254400 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles with fresh testicular spermatozoa obtained on the day of or the day before oocyte collection and with cryopreserved testicular sperm in patients with azoospermia.Fertil Steril. 2013 Oct;100(4):975-80. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.06.031. Epub 2013 Jul 25. Fertil Steril. 2013. PMID: 23891272
-
Comparison of intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome with fresh versus frozen-thawed testicular sperm in men with nonobstructive azoospermia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Jul;35(7):1247-1257. doi: 10.1007/s10815-018-1206-5. Epub 2018 May 21. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018. PMID: 29785532 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Management of non-obstructive azoospermia: advances, challenges, and expert recommendations.Asian J Androl. 2025 May 1;27(3):277-278. doi: 10.4103/aja202539. Epub 2025 Apr 25. Asian J Androl. 2025. PMID: 40275560 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
-
- Edey AJ, Sidhu PS. Male infertility:role of imaging in the diagnosis and management. Imaging. 2008;20:139–46.
-
- Jarow JP, Espeland MA, Lipshultz LI. Evaluation of the azoospermic patient. J Urol. 1989;142:62–5. - PubMed
-
- Chan PT, Schlegel PN. Nonobstructive azoospermia. Curr Opin Urol. 2000;10:617–24. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Supplementary concepts
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources