Testicular Elastography in Male Infertility: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Semen Parameters and Azoospermia
- 1Department of Urology, Casa di Cura Villa Igea, 60127 Ancona, Italy
- 2Internal Medicine Unit Jesi, Area Vasta 2 ASUR Marche, 60035 Jesi, Italy
- 3Department of Urology, Medical School, UniCamillus—Saint Camillus International University of Health and Medical Sciences, 00131 Rome, Italy
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Quantitative testicular elastography has been proposed as a non-invasive marker of spermatogenic impairment, but published results differ across semen phenotypes, azoospermia categories, and ultrasound platforms. Methods: We performed a PRISMA-conformant systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in which quantitative testicular elastography contributed extractable data to at least one meta-analysis. Correlation coefficients were pooled after Fisher-z transformation and back-transformed to r; group contrasts were synthesized as standardized or raw mean differences using random-effects models. SWE/SWV formed the main evidence base, with strain-ratio studies analyzed separately as an ancillary synthesis. Risk of bias was assessed uniformly with the revised JBI tool for analytical cross-sectional studies. Results: Eleven studies contributed to the final quantitative synthesis. Mean stiffness was inversely associated with sperm concentration (r = −0.37, 95% CI −0.41 to −0.32, p < 0.001; I2 = 0%) and motility (r = −0.43, 95% CI −0.58 to −0.24, p < 0.001; I2 = 8%), whereas morphology was not significantly associated (r = −0.12, 95% CI −0.31 to 0.08, p = 0.25). Azoospermic men had greater standardized stiffness than normozoospermic men (SMD 1.695, 95% CI 1.491–1.899; I2 = 0%). No evidence of a stiffness difference between NOA and OA was found (SMD 0.47, 95% CI −0.43 to 1.38; I2 = 97%). The ancillary strain-ratio retrieval estimate was highly imprecise (SMD 4.10, 95% CI −2.44 to 10.64; I2 = 99%). Neither comparison establishes equivalence or excludes a clinically important difference. The stiffness–volume correlation was also highly heterogeneous (I2 = 95%). Conclusions: Available evidence suggests inverse associations of testicular stiffness with sperm concentration and motility and higher stiffness in azoospermia. Few studies per outcome, a dominant cohort, and technical and statistical heterogeneity limit confidence in the pooled estimates. The NOA–OA, retrieval, and stiffness–volume syntheses are exploratory and cannot support clinical recommendations. Diagnostic thresholds and the value of elastography for individual clinical decisions remain unestablished.
Related
- Genetic variants involved in sperm motility and their association with sperm motility parameters and risk of male infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
- Repeat and Redo Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction (Micro-TESE) in Non-Obstructive Azoospermia: A Narrative Review
- Does orchidopexy for testicular torsion affect long-term fertility parameters in males: A systematic review.
- Androgenetic alopecia drugs and male infertility: Evidence from pharmacovigilance and testicular transcriptomics
- Shear Wave Elastography of the Abductor Pollicis Brevis in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Relationship with Quantitative Motor Unit Potential and Nerve Conduction Parameters
BibTeX
@article{falsetti2026testicular,
title = {{Testicular Elastography in Male Infertility: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Semen Parameters and Azoospermia}},
author = {Federico Falsetti and Angelo Cafarelli and Valentina Maurizi and Michele Marchioni and Luigi Schips and Carlo Giulioni},
journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.3390/jcm15218512},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8512},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Testicular Elastography in Male Infertility: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Semen Parameters and Azoospermia
AU - Federico Falsetti
AU - Angelo Cafarelli
AU - Valentina Maurizi
AU - Michele Marchioni
AU - Luigi Schips
AU - Carlo Giulioni
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/02
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO - 10.3390/jcm15218512
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8512
AB - Background/Objectives: Quantitative testicular elastography has been proposed as a non-invasive marker of spermatogenic impairment, but published results differ across semen phenotypes, azoospermia categories, and ultrasound platforms. Methods: We performed a PRISMA-conformant systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in which quantitative testicular elastography contributed extractable data to at least one meta-analysis. Correlation coefficients were pooled after Fisher-z transformation and back-transformed to r; group contrasts were synthesized as standardized or raw mean differences using random-effects models. SWE/SWV formed the main evidence base, with strain-ratio studies analyzed separately as an ancillary synthesis. Risk of bias was assessed uniformly with the revised JBI tool for analytical cross-sectional studies. Results: Eleven studies contributed to the final quantitative synthesis. Mean stiffness was inversely associated with sperm concentration (r = −0.37, 95% CI −0.41 to −0.32, p < 0.001; I2 = 0%) and motility (r = −0.43, 95% CI −0.58 to −0.24, p < 0.001; I2 = 8%), whereas morphology was not significantly associated (r = −0.12, 95% CI −0.31 to 0.08, p = 0.25). Azoospermic men had greater standardized stiffness than normozoospermic men (SMD 1.695, 95% CI 1.491–1.899; I2 = 0%). No evidence of a stiffness difference between NOA and OA was found (SMD 0.47, 95% CI −0.43 to 1.38; I2 = 97%). The ancillary strain-ratio retrieval estimate was highly imprecise (SMD 4.10, 95% CI −2.44 to 10.64; I2 = 99%). Neither comparison establishes equivalence or excludes a clinically important difference. The stiffness–volume correlation was also highly heterogeneous (I2 = 95%). Conclusions: Available evidence suggests inverse associations of testicular stiffness with sperm concentration and motility and higher stiffness in azoospermia. Few studies per outcome, a dominant cohort, and technical and statistical heterogeneity limit confidence in the pooled estimates. The NOA–OA, retrieval, and stiffness–volume syntheses are exploratory and cannot support clinical recommendations. Diagnostic thresholds and the value of elastography for individual clinical decisions remain unestablished.
SN - 2077-0383
ER -