Search

Normal fertility is dependent on intravaginal delivery of semen through ejaculation. This process is highly dependent on an intact ejaculatory reflex arc, which can be disrupted through any type of trauma or disease causing damage to the CNS and/or peripheral nerves. Neurogenic anejaculation is most commonly associated with spinal cord injury. This aetiology is especially relevant because most men with spinal cord injuries are injured at reproductive age. Assisted ejaculation in the form of penile vibratory stimulation is the first choice for sperm retrieval in such patients because it is noninvasive and inexpensive. In patients in whom vibratory stimulation fails, electroejaculation is almost always successful. When both methods of assisted ejaculation are unsuccessful, sperm retrieval by aspiration from either the vas deferens or the epididymis, or by testicular biopsy or surgery are reasonable options. In such cases the most inexpensive and least invasive methods should be considered first. The obtained semen can be used for intravaginal or intrauterine insemination or in vitro fertilization with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

Anejaculation within the context of a male infertility evaluation can be a distressing condition for patients. A variety of causes for anejaculation have been identified, and although the condition cannot be reversed, in many cases a minimally invasive treatment is feasible, allowing the patient to pursue his desire for children. In most cases, men suffering from anejaculation due to spinal cord injury (SCI) are excellent candidates for ejaculation induction procedures and low-level assisted reproductive techniques. In many SCI men, penile vibratory ejaculation can be performed by the patient himself and home insemination performed as a very low cost alternative. Surgical sperm retrieval and intracytoplasmic sperm injection should be first-line therapy only in non-SCI anejaculatory men.

Anejaculatory infertility is a challenge for the treating physician. Accurate diagnosis and choice of treatment plan must carefully proceed to maximize success rates while maintaining cost-effectiveness. In this article the authors review ejaculatory infertility evaluation and treatment.

Purpose: We examined the effects of ejaculation by penile vibratory stimulation on bladder capacity in men with spinal cord lesions., Material and Methods: Included in our study were 14 men with spinal cord lesions from C4 to T7 with detrusor hyperreflexia. Cystometry was performed before and immediately after ejaculation by penile vibratory stimulation to establish baseline conditions and repeated after 1 month of ejaculation by penile vibratory stimulation every third day. The third cystometry study was done after 1 month of ejaculation by penile vibratory stimulation every third day at home to determine any long-term effects of treatment. This third cystometry was performed 72 hours after the last ejaculation to exclude any acute effects of ejaculation by penile vibratory stimulation on detrusor hyperreflexia. In addition, 1 to 3 days later ejaculation was induced by penile vibratory stimulation and immediately followed by cystometry to examine whether it was possible to achieve an acute effect as well as a potential long-term effect., Results: Baseline urodynamic investigations revealed bladder hyperreflexia and external sphincter dyssynergia in all individuals. There was no statistically significant difference in bladder capacity at leak point before and immediately after ejaculation by penile vibratory stimulation. However, after 4 weeks of frequent penile vibratory stimulation treatment bladder capacity at leak point increased significantly from a median of 190 ml. (range 17 to 700) at baseline to 293 (range 30 to 700) (Wilcoxon signed rank test p = 0.03). Furthermore, there was a trend toward decreased intravesical pressure during the filling phase., Conclusions: Ejaculation by penile vibratory stimulation was associated with a significant increase in bladder capacity at leak point after 4 weeks of frequent treatment. This finding may have implications in the management of incontinence in men with spinal cord lesions.

The purpose of this review is to present the current understanding of penile vibratory stimulation (PVS) and electroejaculation (EEJ) procedures and its clinical use in men with ejaculatory dysfunction. Unfortunately, the record of treating such individuals has been quite poor, but within recent years development and refinement of PVS and EEJ in men with spinal cord injury (SCI) has significantly enhanced the prospects for treatment of ejaculatory dysfunction. The majority of spinal cord injured men are not able to produce antegrade ejaculation by masturbation or sexual stimulation. However, approximately 80% of all spinal cord injured men with an intact ejaculatory reflex arc (above T10) can obtain antegrade ejaculation with PVS. Electroejaculation may be successful in obtaining ejaculate from men with all types of SCI, including men who do not have major components of the ejaculatory reflex arc. Because vibratory stimulation is very simple in use, non-invasive, it does not require anaesthesia and is preferred by the patients when compared with EEJ, PVS is recommended to be the first choice of treatment in spinal cord injured men. Furthermore, EEJ has been successfully used to induce ejaculation in men with multiple sclerosis and diabetic neuropathy. Any other conditions which affect the ejaculatory mechanism of the central and/or peripheral nervous system including surgical nerve injury may be treated successfully with EEJ. Finally, for sperm retrieval and sperm cryopreservation before intensive anticancer therapy in pubertal boys, PVS and EEJ have been successfully performed in patients who failed to obtain ejaculation by masturbation. Nearly all data concerning semen characteristics in men with ejaculatory dysfuntion originate from spinal cord injured men. Semen analyses demonstrate low sperm motility rates in the majority of spinal cord injured men. The data give evidence of a decline in spermatogenesis and motility of ejaculated spermatozoa shortly after (few weeks) an acute SCI. Furthermore, it is suggested that some factors in the seminal plasma and/or disordered storage of spermatozoa in the seminal vesicles are mainly responsible for the impaired semen profiles in men with chronic SCI. Home insemination with semen obtained by penile vibratory and introduced intravaginally in order to achieve successful pregnancies may be an option for some spinal cord injured men and their partners. The majority of men will further enhance their fertility potential when using either penile vibratory or EEJ combined with assisted reproduction techniques such as intrauterine insemination or in-vitro fertilization with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

Background Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is considered the gold standard for male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, TURP may lead to sexual dysfunction and incontinence, and has a long recovery period. Prostatic urethral lift (PUL) is a treatment option that may overcome these limitations. Objective To compare PUL to TURP with regard to LUTS improvement, recovery, worsening of erectile and ejaculatory function, continence and safety (BPH6). Design, setting, and participants Prospective, randomized, controlled trial at 10 European centers involving 80 men with BPH LUTS. Intervention PUL or TURP. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The BPH6 responder endpoint assesses symptom relief, quality of recovery, erectile function preservation, ejaculatory function preservation, continence preservation, and safety. Noninferiority was evaluated using a one-sided lower 95% confidence limit for the difference between PUL and TURP performance. Results and limitations Preservation of ejaculation and quality of recovery were superior with PUL ( p < 0.01). Significant symptom relief was achieved in both treatment arms. The study demonstrated not only noninferiority but also superiority of PUL over TURP on the BPH6 endpoint. Study limitations were the small sample size and the inability to blind participants to enrollment arm. Conclusions Assessment of individual BPH6 elements revealed that PUL was superior to TURP with respect to quality of recovery and preservation of ejaculatory function. PUL was superior to TURP according to the novel BPH6 responder endpoint, which needs to be validated in future studies. Patient summary In this study, participants who underwent prostatic urethral lift responded significantly better than those who underwent transurethral resection of the prostate as therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia with regard to important aspects of quality of life. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01533038. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]