Financial decision analysis based on “willingness to pay” for surgical sperm retrieval approaches among men with non‐obstructive azoospermia in the United States

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveTo determine the most financially optimal surgical approach for testicular sperm retrieval for men with non‐obstructive azoospermia.DesignA decision tree was created examining five potential surgical approaches for men with non‐obstructive azoospermia pursuing one cycle of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. An expected financial net loss was determined for each surgical option based on couples’ willingness to pay for one cycle of intracytoplasmic sperm injection resulting in pregnancy. The branch with the lowest expected net loss was defined as the most optimal financial decision (minimizing loss to a couple). Fresh testicular sperm extraction implied testicular sperm extraction was performed in conjunction with programmed ovulation induction. Frozen testicular sperm extraction implied testicular sperm extraction was performed initially, and ovulation induction/intracytoplasmic sperm injection was canceled if sperm retrieval failed.  The surgical options included fresh conventional testicular sperm extraction, with and without “back‐up” sperm cryopreservation, fresh microsurgical testicular sperm extraction, with and without “back‐up” sperm cryopreservation, and frozen microsurgical testicular sperm extraction. Success was defined as pregnancy after one intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle.Materials and methodsProbabilities of successful sperm retrieval with conventional testicular sperm extraction/microsurgical testicular sperm extraction, post‐thaw sperm cellular loss following frozen microsurgical testicular sperm extraction, ovulation induction/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle out‐of‐pocket costs, intracytoplasmic sperm injection pregnancy rates for men with non‐obstructive azoospermia, standard conventional testicular sperm extraction cost and average willingness to pay for intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle were gathered from the systematic literature review. Costs were in USD and adjusted to inflation (as of April 2020). Two‐way sensitivity analysis was performed on varying couples' willingness to pay for one cycle of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and varying microsurgical testicular sperm extraction out‐of‐pocket costs.ResultsAccording to our decision tree analysis (assuming minimum microsurgical testicular sperm extraction cost of $1,000 and willingness to pay of $8,000), the expected net loss for each branch was as follows: ‐$17,545 for fresh conventional testicular sperm extraction, ‐$17,523 for fresh microsurgical testicular sperm extraction, ‐$9,624 for frozen microsurgical testicular sperm extraction, ‐$17,991 for fresh conventional testicular sperm extraction with “backup”, and ‐$18,210 for fresh microsurgical testicular sperm extraction with “backup”. Two‐way sensitivity analysis with a variable willingness to pay values and microsurgical testicular sperm extraction and in‐vitro fertilization costs confirmed that frozen microsurgical testicular sperm extraction consistently presented the lowest net loss compared to other options. Interestingly, when directly comparing fresh microsurgical testicular sperm extraction and conventional testicular sperm extraction with “back‐up”, scenarios with decreasing willingness to pay and lower microsurgical testicular sperm extraction costs demonstrated fresh conventional testicular sperm extraction with “back‐up” as more optimal than fresh microsurgical testicular sperm extraction with “back‐up”.ConclusionsFor those couples who must pay out of pocket, our study suggests that frozen microsurgical testicular sperm extraction is the most financially optimal decision for the surgical management of non‐obstructive azoospermia, regardless of microsurgical testicular sperm extraction cost and the couple's willingness to pay.