The Effects of Varicocele Repair on Testicular Sperm Retrieval, Sperm Recovery in the Ejaculate and Clinical Pregnancy Rates in Non-Obstructive Azoospermic Men with Clinical Varicocele:A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE: The role of varicocele repair (VR) in infertile men with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) and varicocele is controversial in the current guidelines, despite available studies. This study aims to assess the impact of VR on testicular sperm retrieval, sperm recovery from the ejaculate, and clinical pregnancy rates in infertile men with NOA and clinical varicocele through a systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) of controlled studies.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using the Scopus and PubMed databases up to November 2023. Among the 1,847 articles retrieved, five observational controlled studies comparing reproductive outcomes between infertile men with NOA and clinical varicocele who underwent VR, and a control group that received no treatment, met the inclusion criteria for this SRMA.RESULTS: The selected studies included 269 men with NOA who underwent VR before the testicular sperm extraction (TESE) procedure and 364 men who did not undergo VR. The pooled estimate demonstrated a significantly higher odds ratio (OR) of 2.17 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.17-4.01, p=0.01) for surgical sperm retrieval in the VR group. VR significantly increased the likelihood of sperm appearance in the ejaculate, with an OR of 7.8 (95% CI: 3.59-16.94, p&lt;0.001). Besides, VR provided a significantly greater clinical pregnancy rate with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) compared to non-operated men (OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.03-4.60; p=0.04).CONCLUSIONS: This is the first SRMA, consisting of only controlled studies, to demonstrate that VR performed prior to TESE in men with NOA significantly improves sperm production as reflected in the spontaneous appearance of sperm in the semen and higher odds of surgical sperm retrieval and clinical pregnancy compared with non-operated men. Thus, these findings highlight the potentially beneficial impact of VR in men with NOA and clinical varicocele.</p

Global Andrology Forum (GAF) Clinical Guidelines on the Management of Infertile Men with Varicocele

PURPOSE: Varicocele is among the most common reversible causes of male infertility. Although varicocele is prevalent and there is a growing body of literature on the subject, there are still numerous debates surrounding the matter. This study presents Global Andrology Forum (GAF) clinical guidelines on the management of infertile men with varicocele.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A team of clinicians and reproductive experts reviewed contemporary evidence on all aspects of varicocele, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and the results of the GAF global survey of practices. They then formulated expert statements and recommendations, subject to a modified Delphi process until a consensus was reached. The final statements and recommendations were rated using the GRADE system.RESULTS: A total of 31 statements and recommendations on the evaluation and management of varicocele were introduced and scored by 24 experts. All experts agreed with the final statements. Varicocele is a significant contributor to male infertility. Its diagnosis is based mainly on physical examination, although imaging can be used in certain cases. Clinical varicocele associated with abnormal sperm parameters is the primary unanimous indication of varicocele repair. However, other indications can still be considered, and recommendations for a tailored approach to controversial situations have been presented. There is inadequate evidence on the use of medical therapy for varicocele.CONCLUSIONS: These clinical guidelines on the management of infertile men with varicocele, based on the GAF surveys, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, point out the pivotal importance of varicocele in modern Andrology. Continued research is crucial to improving diagnostic accuracy and treatment outcomes, ultimately enhancing reproductive health for men with varicocele. Therefore, the current guidelines allow clinicians to develop effective management strategies for a common issue and address practical questions where evidence is lacking.</p

Global Andrology Forum (GAF) Clinical Guidelines on the Management of Non-obstructive Azoospermia:Bridging the Gap between Controversy and Consensus

PURPOSE: Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA), defined as the absence of sperm in the ejaculate due to testicular failure, is observed in 5% to 15% of infertile men and accounts for two-thirds of azoospermia cases. The management of NOA is marked by significant controversy and global variation in diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, highlighting the crucial need for well-designed and standardized clinical practice guidelines. We present comprehensive graded clinical practice recommendations and statements for diagnosing and treating NOA, aiming to establish standardized strategies that can globally help guide practitioners in their practice.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was conducted to gather evidence on the epidemiological, diagnostic, and therapeutic aspects of NOA. The Global Andrology Forum (GAF) recommendations were developed through the collaboration of a global panel of experts using the Delphi method and surveys to achieve consensus. Statements were graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine "GRADE" classification as either "Strong" or "Weak." Statements receiving at least 80% expert consensus were graded as "Strong," while others were categorized as "Weak."RESULTS: The GAF has formulated a total of 49 recommendations and statements on the diagnosis and treatment of NOA, including 21 for diagnosis and 28 for treatment. The recommendations and statements were evaluated and graded by a panel of 48 GAF experts from 25 countries worldwide. The majority of experts (60.5%) had more than 10 years of clinical experience in managing NOA.CONCLUSIONS: The GAF guidelines address discrepancies in NOA management across diverse clinical settings and provide comprehensive graded recommendations to guide clinicians in its diagnosis and treatment. Developed and graded by a large worldwide panel of experts, the current guidelines present simplified, high-standard strategies that can be seamlessly integrated into the daily global practice, offering practitioners a clear framework for managing NOA.</p

Global Andrology Forum Clinical Guidelines on the Relevance of Sperm DNA Fragmentation in Reproductive Medicine

PURPOSE: To evaluate the evidence on sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) and its clinical applications in reproductive medicine, highlighting benefits, limitations, and guidelines for its use to assist clinicians in objective decision-making.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of clinicians and reproductive experts from the Global Andrology Forum (GAF) reviewed the latest evidence on SDF, covering indications, testing methods, recurrent pregnancy loss, varicocele and its repair, assisted reproductive technologies (ART), treatment of associated conditions, antioxidant therapy, and sperm selection for ART. Expert statements and recommendations were developed and graded with the GRADE system using a modified Delphi process.RESULTS: Based on the GAF surveys, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses related to SDF, 52 experts introduced and scored 24 statements and recommendations using the GRADE system. Of these, 87.5% (21/24) achieved strong ratings, reflecting broad consensus, while 12.5% (3/24) were rated weak. The guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for clinical scenarios, including the role of SDF in infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, and ART outcomes.CONCLUSIONS: While there is growing interest and evidence regarding the clinical benefit of SDF testing and its utility in managing male infertility, significant gaps in the literature limit its routine use in clinical practice. The guidelines offer a structured framework for integrating SDF testing into male infertility management, emphasizing a tailored approach based on individual clinical scenarios. Clinicians must balance the benefits and limitations of SDF testing and antioxidant treatment to optimize care in reproductive medicine. These guidelines are critical for advancing evidence-based practices in male infertility management.</p

Antisperm Antibody Testing: A Comprehensive Review of Its Role in the Management of Immunological Male Infertility and Results of a Global Survey of Clinical Practices

Antisperm antibodies (ASA), as a cause of male infertility, have been detected in infertile males as early as 1954. Multiple causes of ASA production have been identified, and they are due to an abnormal exposure of mature germ cells to the immune system. ASA testing (with mixed anti-globulin reaction, and immunobead binding test) was described in the WHO manual 5th edition and is most recently listed among the extended semen tests in the WHO manual 6th edition. The relationship between ASA and infertility is somewhat complex. The presence of sperm agglutination, while insufficient to diagnose immunological infertility, may indicate the presence of ASA. However, ASA can also be present in the absence of any sperm agglutination. The andrological management of ASA depends on the etiology and individual practices of clinicians. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of the causes of ASA production, its role in immunological male infertility, clinical indications of ASA testing, and the available therapeutic options. We also provide the details of laboratory procedures for assessment of ASA together with important measures for quality control. Additionally, laboratory and clinical scenarios are presented to guide the reader in the management of ASA and immunological male infertility. Furthermore, we report the results of a recent worldwide survey, conducted to gather information about clinical practices in the management of immunological male infertility

Post-Vasectomy Semen Analysis: Optimizing Laboratory Procedures and Test Interpretation through a Clinical Audit and Global Survey of Practices

Purpose: The success of vasectomy is determined by the outcome of a post-vasectomy semen analysis (PVSA). This article describes a step-by-step procedure to perform PVSA accurately, report data from patients who underwent post vasectomy semen analysis between 2015 and 2021 experience, along with results from an international online survey on clinical practice. 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

Post-vasectomy semen analysis: Optimizing laboratory procedures and test interpretation through a clinical audit and global survey of practices

Purpose: The success of vasectomy is determined by the outcome of a post-vasectomy semen analysis (PVSA). This article describes a step-by-step procedure to perform PVSA accurately, report data from patients who underwent post vasectomy semen analysis between 2015 and 2021 experience, along with results from an international online survey on clinical practice. 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.American Center for Reproductive Medicin

Controversy and consensus on indications for sperm DNA fragmentation testing in male infertility: a global survey, current guidelines, and expert recommendations.

PURPOSE: Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) testing was recently added to the sixth edition of the World Health Organization laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. Many conditions and risk factors have been associated with elevated SDF; therefore, it is important to identify the population of infertile men who might benefit from this test. The purpose of this study was to investigate global practices related to indications for SDF testing, compare the relevant professional society guideline recommendations, and provide expert recommendations. 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

Controversy and consensus on the management of elevated sperm DNA fragmentation in male infertility: a global survey, current guidelines, and expert recommendations

PURPOSE: Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) has been associated with male infertility and poor outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The purpose of this study was to investigate global practices related to the management of elevated SDF in infertile men, summarize the relevant professional society recommendations, and provide expert recommendations for managing this condition. 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

Consensus and Diversity in the Management of Varicocele for Male Infertility: Results of a Global Practice Survey and Comparison with Guidelines and Recommendations

PURPOSE: Varicocele is a common problem among infertile men. Varicocele repair (VR) is frequently performed to improve semen parameters and the chances of pregnancy. However, there is a lack of consensus about the diagnosis, indications for VR and its outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore global practice patterns on the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility. 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