Search

Background: Two male contraceptive methods that inhibit spermatogenesis currently exist: thermal male contraception and hormonal male contraception. Only five studies have been conducted on the acceptability of these methods among men; among women, only the hypothetical acceptability of such a male contraceptive approach as the sole contraception method used by a couple has been evaluated., Objectives: To evaluate the motivation, experience, and satisfaction of female partners in couples using hormonal male contraception or thermal male contraception as the sole contraception., Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 123 male users of hormonal male contraception or thermal male contraception as the couple's sole contraception method were asked to invite their female partner to participate in an anonymous online survey. The questionnaire included 95 questions exploring population characteristics, contraceptive and pregnancy history, motivations for choosing hormonal male contraception or thermal male contraception, the experience of the women in the successive phase of use, relationships with their partner, and satisfaction with the contraception method., Results: The response rate among participating women was 69% (59/86). The two main reasons for choosing male contraceptive were the desire to share the contraception role in the couple (65%) and the desire of the man to take charge of the contraception (61%). The sexual satisfaction score increased significantly between the contraceptive methods used before hormonal male contraception or thermal male contraception and the phase of contraceptive use (p < 0.01). The overall satisfaction level with thermal male contraception or hormonal male contraception was rated at 3.7 ± 0.6 out of 4. Women mostly recommended hormonal male contraception or thermal male contraception because of the share of contraceptive responsibility and mental load (n = 23/54, 43%)., Discussion: This population of women seemed to have struggled to find a contraceptive method that suited them, but most took advantage of thermal male contraception or hormonal male contraception and trusted their male partner to take charge of contraception use., Conclusion: The positive evaluation from women in partnerships using thermal male contraception and hormonal male contraception should encourage the development of these methods., (© 2024 The Author(s). Andrology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of American Society of Andrology and European Academy of Andrology.)

Purpose: The aim of this study is to evaluate the motivations, experience, and acceptability of thermal male contraception (TMC) in male partners of couples requesting the use of TMC as the only couple contraceptive., Materials and Methods: To the 72 men of couples seeking male contraception and using TMC between 2011 and 2019, we suggested an anonymous online survey (93 questions) exploring population characteristics, contraceptive histories, motivations for choosing TMC, patient experience at the successive phases of use, relations with partner and environment, and satisfaction with this method., Results: Sixty-seven men agreed to participate (93% response rate); 63 responses were complete and were analyzed (94% participation rate). The main motivations for choosing TMC were "not using hormones" (n = 59/63, 94%) and using a method regarded as "natural" (n = 49/63, 78%). Most of the men surveyed (68%) adopted the method in less than 2 weeks. During the contraception use phase (n = 59 men), they described significantly improved sexual satisfaction, compared to that experienced with their previous contraceptive methods, and they reported high confidence (100% rather/totally confident partner) and support (88% rather/totally supporting partner) from their partner. Most men (n = 35/59, 59%) also reported improved self-esteem. The main negative point was discomfort, reported by 24% of the men. The overall satisfaction score of using this method was 3.78 ± 0.46/4, and 100% of the men reported that they would recommend the method to other men., Discussion and Conclusion: Men using TMC successfully assumed the responsibility for and performed a daily task to provide couple contraception. This positive evaluation, together with the already published contraceptive efficacy and reversibility of TMC, should encourage the development of this method., (© 2022 American Society of Andrology and European Academy of Andrology.)

Background: Congenital unilateral absence of vas deferens has been diagnosed in fertile and normozoospermic males and is associated with the risk of unilateral renal absence or cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator mutations; but no prediction model currently exists to diagnose this condition., Objectives: The study aims to identify clinical and biological variables that may have a predictive value for the diagnosis of congenital unilateral absence of vas deferens in male partners of infertile couples MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a retrospective, cross-sectional, case-control study on electronic health records of a single tertiary-care andrological centre collected between 1998 and 2018. We included all subjects diagnosed with congenital unilateral absence of vas deferens using combined scrotal and transrectal ultrasounds. Controls were confirmed free of congenital unilateral absence of vas deferens by the same way. Both groups received standardised exploration procedures. Multivariable logistic regression model was built in a backward stepwise manner. Model performance and calibration were assessed. The study is reported according to TRIPOD statement., Results: We included 69 congenital unilateral absence of vas deferens cases and 78 controls. Cases had a lower semen volume than controls. The congenital unilateral absence of vas deferens risk was associated with history of cryptorchidism and both levels of semen fructose and α-glucosidase. These predictors were confirmed by a random forest algorithm. The area under the curve was 0.886 (95% interval: 0.81-0.92). Calibration was performed with the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (p = 0.88)., Discussion and Conclusion: History of cryptorchidism, semen fructose and α-glucosidase were identified as relevant and independent predictors for the diagnosis of congenital unilateral absence of vas deferens. The model enables to identify male patients with a high risk of congenital unilateral absence of vas deferens to whom a transrectal ultrasounds would be proposed to confirm the diagnosis, whatever their semen parameters. It will also help to address the risks of unilateral renal absence and of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator mutations carrying during the management of infertile couples., (© 2021 American Society of Andrology and European Academy of Andrology.)

Background: Men with congenital unilateral absence of vas deferens were reported to be mainly azoospermic, with both unilateral renal absence and mutations in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) but some have neither., Objectives: To assess whether in infertile couples the male partners with congenital unilateral absence of vas deferens are mainly azoospermic men., Material and Methods: Retrospective study in a unique university hospital; reproductive, clinical, CFTR analysis and seminal data of male partners of infertile couples (from 1998 to 2018) were analysed. Diagnosis of congenital unilateral absence of vas deferens was based on transrectal ultrasounds (TRUS): complete or partial absence of one vas deferens with complete contralateral vas deferens confirmed in 63 men. Distribution of sperm count in three classes: azoospermia, oligozoospermia or normozoospermia. Ultrasound determination of renal status; seminal biomarkers assays; and search for CFTR mutations., Results: Among the 63 men, 39.7% displayed azoospermia, 27% oligozoospermia and 33.3% normozoospermia; 42% of the non-azoospermic men (16/38) had previously obtained a natural pregnancy. We found unilateral renal absence in 17/59 patients (29%). Among 50 men with CFTR testing, five carried an allele associated with cystic fibrosis belonging to the 29 men without renal anomalies, indicating a high allelic frequency (8.6%). The 63 patients displayed high rates of surgical histories for undescended testicles or inguinal hernia, low values of semen volume and of total seminal glycerophosphocholine., Conclusions: Our results indicate that men with congenital unilateral absence of vas deferens mainly display oligozoospermia or normozoospermia and that they were previously fertile. They clearly confirm, first, that CFTR testing is recommended in congenital unilateral absence of vas deferens men and it should be mandatory for those with normal kidneys; and, second, that TRUS is needed for the diagnosis of congenital unilateral absence of vas deferens. As congenital unilateral absence of vas deferens may be present whatever the sperm count, biological warnings are represented by semen volume and seminal epididymal markers and clinical warnings by surgical histories of undescended testes or inguinal hernia., (© 2019 American Society of Andrology and European Academy of Andrology.)