MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane databases. This SRMA included randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting the pre- and postoperative levels of SDF and seminal OS in infertile men with clinical varicocele that underwent VR. Subgroup analyses included techniques of VR and SDF testing. The effect size was expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD).
RESULTS: Out of 1,632 abstracts assessed for eligibility, 29 studies with 1,491 infertile men were included. The analysis showed a significant reduction in SDF after VR, compared to preoperative values (SMD -1.125, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.410, -0.840; p<0.0001) with high inter-study heterogeneity (I²=90.965%). Reduction in SDF was evident with microsurgical technique and non-microsurgical inguinal approaches (SMD -1.014, 95% CI -1.263, -0.765; p<0.0001, and SMD -1.495, 95% CI -2.116, -0.873; p<0.0001), respectively. Reduction in SDF was significant irrespective of testing was done by sperm chromatin dispersion (SMD -2.197, 95% CI -3.187, -1.207; p<0.0001), sperm chromatin structure assay (SMD -0.857, 95% CI -1.156, -0.559; p<0.0001) or TUNEL (SMD -1.599, 95% CI -2.478, -0.719; p<0.0001). A significant decrease in seminal MDA levels was observed following VR (SMD -2.450, 95% CI -3.903 to -0.997, p=0.001) with high inter-study heterogeneity (I²=93.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: Using pre- and post-intervention data, this SRMA indicates a significant reduction in SDF and seminal MDA levels in infertile men with clinical varicocele treated with VR. These findings may have important implications for the future management of this selected group of infertile patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed using Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases following the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICOS) model (Population: infertile patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: VR [any technique]; Comparison: infertile patients with clinical varicocele that were untreated; Outcome: sperm concentration, sperm total count, progressive sperm motility, total sperm motility, sperm morphology, and semen volume; Study type: randomized controlled trials and observational studies).
RESULTS: A total of 1,632 abstracts were initially assessed for eligibility. Sixteen studies were finally included with a total of 2,420 infertile men with clinical varicocele (1,424 patients treated with VR vs. 996 untreated controls). The analysis showed significantly improved post-operative semen parameters in patients compared to controls with regards to sperm concentration (standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.739; 95% CI 1.129 to 2.349; p<0.001; I²=97.6%), total sperm count (SMD 1.894; 95% CI 0.566 to 3.222; p<0.05; I²=97.8%), progressive sperm motility (SMD 3.301; 95% CI 2.164 to 4.437; p<0.01; I²=98.5%), total sperm motility (SMD 0.887; 95% CI 0.036 to 1.738; p=0.04; I²=97.3%) and normal sperm morphology (SMD 1.673; 95% CI 0.876 to 2.470; p<0.05; I²=98.5%). All the outcomes showed a high inter-study heterogeneity, but the sensitivity analysis showed that no study was sensitive enough to change these results. Publication bias was present only in the analysis of the sperm concentration and progressive motility. No significant difference was found for the semen volume (SMD 0.313; 95% CI -0.242 to 0.868; I²=89.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a high level of evidence in favor of a positive effect of VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men with clinical varicocele. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first SRMA to compare changes in conventional semen parameters after VR with changes in parameters of a control group over the same period. This is in contrast to other SRMAs which have compared semen parameters before and after VR, without reference to a control group. Our findings strengthen the available evidence and have a potential to upgrade professional societies' practice recommendations favoring VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 39-question survey was developed by senior Global Andrology Forum (GAF) experts to comprehensively cover clinical aspects of RT. This was distributed globally via a secure online Google Form to ED specialists through the GAF website, international professional societies, and social media, the responses were analyzed and presented for frequencies as percentages. Consensus on expert recommendations for RT use was achieved using the Delphi method.
RESULTS: Out of 479 respondents from 62 countries, a third reported using RT for ED. The most popular treatment was low-intensity shock wave therapy (54.6%), followed by platelet-rich plasma (24.5%) and their combination (14.7%), with stem cell therapy being the least used (3.7%). The primary indication for RT was the refractory or adverse effects of PDE5 inhibitors, with the best effectiveness reported in middle-aged and mild-to-moderate ED patients. Respondents were confident about its overall safety, with a significant number expressing interest in RT's future use, despite pending guidelines support.
CONCLUSIONS: This inaugural global survey reveals a growing use of RT in ED treatment, showcasing its diverse clinical applications and potential for future widespread adoption. However, the lack of comprehensive evidence and clear guidelines requires further research to standardize RT practices in ED treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using an online survey, this study aimed to evaluate the practice pattern of reproductive specialists to determine the clinical utility of oxidative stress (OS) testing and antioxidant prescriptions to treat male infertility.
RESULTS: Responses from 1,327 participants representing 6 continents, showed the largest participant representation being from Asia (46.8%). The majority of participants were attending physicians (59.6%), with 61.3% having more than 10 years of experience in the field of male infertility. Approximately two-thirds of clinicians (65.7%) participated in this survey did not order any diagnostic tests for OS. Sperm DNA fragmentation was the most common infertility test beyond a semen analysis that was prescribed to study oxidative stress-related dysfunctions (53.4%). OS was mainly tested in the presence of lifestyle risk factors (24.6%) or sperm abnormalities (16.3%). Interestingly, antioxidants were prescribed by 85.6% of clinicians, for a duration of 3 (43.7%) or 3-6 months (38.6%). A large variety of antioxidants and dietary supplements were prescribed, and scientific evidence were mostly considered to be modest to support their clinical use. Results were not influenced by the physician's age, geographic origin, experience or training in male infertility.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the largest online survey performed to date on this topic and demonstrates 1) a worldwide understanding of the importance of this therapeutic option, and 2) a widely prevalent use of antioxidants to treat male infertility. Finally, the necessity of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines from professional societies is highlighted.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinicians managing male infertility were invited to complete an online survey on practices related to SDF diagnostic and treatment approaches. Their responses related to the technical aspects of SDF testing, current professional society guidelines, and the literature were used to generate expert recommendations via the Delphi method. Finally, challenges related to SDF that the clinicians encounter in their daily practice were captured.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 436 reproductive clinicians. Overall, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase deoxyuridine triphosphate Nick-End Labeling (TUNEL) is the most commonly used assay chosen by 28.6%, followed by the sperm chromatin structure assay (24.1%), and the sperm chromatin dispersion (19.1%). The choice of the assay was largely influenced by availability (70% of respondents). A threshold of 30% was the most selected cut-off value for elevated SDF by 33.7% of clinicians. Of respondents, 53.6% recommend SDF testing after 3 to 5 days of abstinence. Although 75.3% believe SDF testing can provide an explanation for many unknown causes of infertility, the main limiting factors selected by respondents are a lack of professional society guideline recommendations (62.7%) and an absence of globally accepted references for SDF interpretation (50.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest global survey on the technical aspects of SDF testing as well as the barriers encountered by clinicians. Unified global recommendations regarding clinician implementation and standard laboratory interpretation of SDF testing are crucial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We present a detailed step-by-step protocol for performing and interpretating PVSA testing, along with recommendations for proficiency testing, competency assessment for performing PVSA, and clinical and laboratory scenarios. Moreover, we conducted an analysis of 1,114 PVSA performed at the Cleveland Clinic's Andrology Laboratory and an online survey to understand clinician responses to the PVSA results in various countries.
RESULTS: Results from our clinical experience showed that 92.1% of patients passed PVSA, with 7.9% being further tested. A total of 78 experts from 19 countries participated in the survey, and the majority reported to use time from vasectomy rather than the number of ejaculations as criterion to request PVSA. A high percentage of responders reported permitting unprotected intercourse only if PVSA samples show azoospermia while, in the presence of few non-motile sperm, the majority of responders suggested using alternative contraception, followed by another PVSA. In the presence of motile sperm, the majority of participants asked for further PVSA testing. Repeat vasectomy was mainly recommended if motile sperm were observed after multiple PVSA's. A large percentage reported to recommend a second PVSA due to the possibility of legal actions.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlighted varying clinical practices around the globe, with controversy over the significance of non-motile sperm in the PVSA sample. Our data suggest that less stringent AUA guidelines would help improve test compliance. A large longitudinal multi-center study would clarify various doubts related to timing and interpretation of PVSA and would also help us to understand, and perhaps predict, recanalization and the potential for future failure of a vasectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinicians managing male infertility were invited to take part in a global online survey on SDF clinical practices. This was conducted following the CHERRIES checklist criteria. The responses were compared to professional society guideline recommendations related to SDF and the appropriate available evidence. Expert recommendations on indications for SDF testing were then formulated, and the Delphi method was used to reach consensus.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 436 experts from 55 countries. Almost 75% of respondents test for SDF in all or some men with unexplained or idiopathic infertility, 39% order it routinely in the work-up of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), and 62.2% investigate SDF in smokers. While 47% of reproductive urologists test SDF to support the decision for varicocele repair surgery when conventional semen parameters are normal, significantly fewer general urologists (23%; p=0.008) do the same. Nearly 70% would assess SDF before assisted reproductive technologies (ART), either always or for certain conditions. Recurrent ART failure is a common indication for SDF testing. Very few society recommendations were found regarding SDF testing.
CONCLUSIONS: This article presents the largest global survey on the indications for SDF testing in infertile men, and demonstrates diverse practices. Furthermore, it highlights the paucity of professional society guideline recommendations. Expert recommendations are proposed to help guide clinicians.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online global survey on clinical practices related to SDF was disseminated to reproductive clinicians, according to the CHERRIES checklist criteria. Management protocols for various conditions associated with SDF were captured and compared to the relevant recommendations in professional society guidelines and the appropriate available evidence. Expert recommendations and consensus on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF were then formulated and adapted using the Delphi method.
RESULTS: A total of 436 experts from 55 different countries submitted responses. As an initial approach, 79.1% of reproductive experts recommend lifestyle modifications for infertile men with elevated SDF, and 76.9% prescribe empiric antioxidants. Regarding antioxidant duration, 39.3% recommend 4-6 months and 38.1% recommend 3 months. For men with unexplained or idiopathic infertility, and couples experiencing recurrent miscarriages associated with elevated SDF, most respondents refer to ART 6 months after failure of conservative and empiric medical management. Infertile men with clinical varicocele, normal conventional semen parameters, and elevated SDF are offered varicocele repair immediately after diagnosis by 31.4%, and after failure of antioxidants and conservative measures by 40.9%. Sperm selection techniques and testicular sperm extraction are also management options for couples undergoing ART. For most questions, heterogenous practices were demonstrated.
CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents the results of a large global survey on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF and reveals a lack of consensus among clinicians. Furthermore, it demonstrates the scarcity of professional society guidelines in this regard and attempts to highlight the relevant evidence. Expert recommendations are proposed to help guide clinicians.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA-P and MOOSE guidelines. A systematic search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Eligible studies were selected according to the PICOS model (Population: infertile male patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: varicocele repair; Comparison: intra-person before-after varicocele repair; Outcome: conventional semen parameters; Study type: randomized controlled trials [RCTs], observational and case-control studies).
RESULTS: Out of 1,632 screened abstracts, 351 articles (23 RCTs, 292 observational, and 36 case-control studies) were included in the quantitative analysis. The before-and-after analysis showed significant improvements in all semen parameters after varicocele repair (except sperm vitality); semen volume: standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.203, 95% CI: 0.129-0.278; p<0.001; I²=83.62%, Egger's p=0.3329; sperm concentration: SMD 1.590, 95% CI: 1.474-1.706; p<0.001; I²=97.86%, Egger's p<0.0001; total sperm count: SMD 1.824, 95% CI: 1.526-2.121; p<0.001; I²=97.88%, Egger's p=0.0063; total motile sperm count: SMD 1.643, 95% CI: 1.318-1.968; p<0.001; I²=98.65%, Egger's p=0.0003; progressive sperm motility: SMD 1.845, 95% CI: 1.537%-2.153%; p<0.001; I²=98.97%, Egger's p<0.0001; total sperm motility: SMD 1.613, 95% CI 1.467%-1.759%; p<0.001; l2=97.98%, Egger's p<0.001; sperm morphology: SMD 1.066, 95% CI 0.992%-1.211%; p<0.001; I²=97.87%, Egger's p=0.1864.
CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis is the largest to date using paired analysis on varicocele patients. In the current meta-analysis, almost all conventional semen parameters improved significantly following varicocele repair in infertile patients with clinical varicocele.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 56-question online survey covering various aspects of the evaluation and management of NOA was sent to specialists around the globe. This paper analyzes the results of the second half of the survey dealing with the management of NOA. Results have been compared to current guidelines, and expert recommendations have been provided using a Delphi process.
RESULTS: Participants from 49 countries submitted 336 valid responses. Hormonal therapy for 3 to 6 months was suggested before surgical sperm retrieval (SSR) by 29.6% and 23.6% of participants for normogonadotropic hypogonadism and hypergonadotropic hypogonadism respectively. The SSR rate was reported as 50.0% by 26.0% to 50.0% of participants. Interestingly, 46.0% reported successful SSR in <10% of men with Klinefelter syndrome and 41.3% routinely recommended preimplantation genetic testing. Varicocele repair prior to SSR is recommended by 57.7%. Half of the respondents (57.4%) reported using ultrasound to identify the most vascularized areas in the testis for SSR. One-third proceed directly to microdissection testicular sperm extraction (mTESE) in every case of NOA while others use a staged approach. After a failed conventional TESE, 23.8% wait for 3 months, while 33.1% wait for 6 months before proceeding to mTESE. The cut-off of follicle-stimulating hormone for positive SSR was reported to be 12-19 IU/mL by 22.5% of participants and 20-40 IU/mL by 27.8%, while 31.8% reported no upper limit.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest survey to date on the real-world medical and surgical management of NOA by reproductive experts. It demonstrates a diverse practice pattern and highlights the need for evidence-based international consensus guidelines.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 56-item questionnaire survey on NOA diagnosis and management was conducted globally from July to September 2022. This paper focuses on part 1, evaluating NOA diagnosis. Data from 367 participants across 49 countries were analyzed descriptively, with a Delphi process used for expert recommendations.
RESULTS: Of 336 eligible responses, most participants were experienced attending physicians (70.93%). To diagnose azoospermia definitively, 81.7% requested two semen samples. Commonly ordered hormone tests included serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (97.0%), total testosterone (92.9%), and luteinizing hormone (86.9%). Genetic testing was requested by 66.6%, with karyotype analysis (86.2%) and Y chromosome microdeletions (88.3%) prevalent. Diagnostic testicular biopsy, distinguishing obstructive azoospermia (OA) from NOA, was not performed by 45.1%, while 34.6% did it selectively. Differentiation relied on physical examination (76.1%), serum hormone profiles (69.6%), and semen tests (68.1%). Expectations of finding sperm surgically were higher in men with normal FSH, larger testes, and a history of sperm in ejaculate.
CONCLUSIONS: This expert survey, encompassing 367 participants from 49 countries, unveils congruence with recommended guidelines in NOA diagnosis. However, noteworthy disparities in practices suggest a need for evidence-based, international consensus guidelines to standardize NOA evaluation, addressing existing gaps in professional recommendations.