Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 160

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Management of fertility preservation in prepubertal patients: 5 years’ experience at the Catholic University of Louvain

Wyns, C., Curaba, M., Petit, S., Vanabelle, B., Laurent, P., Wese, J.-F.X., Donnez, J.·2011·Human Reproduction

Abstract

BACKGROUND Since prepubertal boys cannot benefit from sperm banking, a potential alternative strategy for fertility preservation involves immature testicular tissue (ITT) banking aimed at preservation of spermatogonial stem cells. Survival of spermatogonia has been demonstrated after ITT freezing, which is considered ethically acceptable. We report the results of a pilot program set up for fertility preservation in prepubertal boys. METHODS All boys undergoing ITT cryobanking from May 2005 were identified from our clinical register. Data were collected from medical files. RESULTS Testicular tissue was retrieved from 52 prepubertal patients under 12 years of age and 10 peripubertal patients aged between 12 and 16 years, in whom no spermatozoa were identified in testicular biopsies. Malignant disease accounted for 80.6% of cases; the remaining patients suffered from benign disorders requiring gonadotoxic treatments. Mean ages, Tanner stages and occurrence rates of urogenital pathology were 6.43 ± 3.32 and 14 ± 1.23 years, I and I-IV, and 13.5 and 20% for pre- and peripubertal patients, respectively. Mean volumes of removed tissue were 20.1 ± 8.6 and 42.4 ± 15.6 mm(3) for pre- and peripubertal patients, respectively. No complications occurred during or after tissue retrieval and 93.5% of referred patients accepted ITT storage. The presence of spermatogonia, and thus the potential for later tissue use, was established in all of these patients. CONCLUSIONS The majority of cryopreserved samples showed reproductive potential. Storage was accepted by most parents. All parents and children considered this fertility preservation strategy a positive approach.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/deq387

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 160

Metadata

Authors
Wyns, C., Curaba, M., Petit, S., Vanabelle, B., Laurent, P., Wese, J.-F. X., & Donnez, J.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2011-01-11
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
737-747
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2165103202
Cited by
160
References
0
FWCI
10.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Management of fertility preservation in prepubertal patients: 5 years’ experience at the Catholic University of Louvain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humrep/deq387
The paper
Wyns, C., Curaba, M., Petit, S., Vanabelle, B., Laurent, P., Wese, J.-F. X., & Donnez, J. (2011). Management of fertility preservation in prepubertal patients: 5 years’ experience at the Catholic University of Louvain. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq387

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.