Search

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.

Purpose: Despite the significant role of varicocele in the pathogenesis of male infertility, the impact of varicocele repair (VR) on conventional semen parameters remains controversial. Only a few systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) have evaluated the impact of VR on sperm concentration, total motility, and progressive motility, mostly using a before-after analytic approach. No SRMA to date has evaluated the change in conventional semen parameters after VR compared to untreated controls. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of VR on conventional semen parameters in infertile patients with clinical varicocele compared to untreated controls. 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

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.

Introduction: Epididymo-orchitis (EO) is a common urological condition. In endemic areas, EO may be the presenting picture of brucellosis. Early suspicion and proper diagnosis is necessary for patient recovery. Objective: The aim of our study is to identify early predictors of Brucella EO. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively collected the data of all patients who were treated at the Urology Unit, Farwaniya Hospital, with acute EO above the age of 12 years between April 2017 and February 2019. Data from electronic and hardcopy files were gathered and analyzed. The diagnosis of acute EO was based on clinical, laboratory, and radiological findings. A total of 120 patients under the diagnosis of EO, epididymitis, and orchitis were reviewed. Thirty-one patients were tested for Brucella based on the history of animal contact, ingestion of unpasteurized dairy products, or persistent fever for more than 48 h. of those patients, 11 tested positive for Brucella orchitis. Results: A comparison between Brucella-positive and Brucella-negative patients regarding age, presence of fever, complete blood count (CBC) parameters, pyuria, and abscess formation was made. In the Brucella group, 72% of the patients had a history of animal contact compared to 33% in non-Brucella group (P = 0.006). When comparing CBC parameters in the two groups, Brucella group had statistically significant lower total leukocytic count and neutrophil count (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) 13.07 ± 4.22, 6.4 ± 9.98 versus Brucella negative group 17.35 ± 5.28, 7.8 ± 10.53, and P values were 0.037 and 0.004, respectively. Brucella group showed lymphocytosis (mean ± SD) 25.95 ± 9.78 versus non-Brucella group 13.22 ± 8.05 and P < 0.01. Conclusion: Brucella orchitis constituted 9% of the orchitis patients treated in our hospital. Patients with a history of animal contact, EO with lymphocytosis, and relative neutropenia should raise the suspicion for Brucella orchitis in endemic areas.

Introduction: Epididymo-orchitis (EO) is a common urological condition. In endemic areas, EO may be the presenting picture of brucellosis. Early suspicion and proper diagnosis is necessary for patient recovery. Objective: The aim of our study is to identify early predictors of Brucella EO. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively collected the data of all patients who were treated at the Urology Unit, Farwaniya Hospital, with acute EO above the age of 12 years between April 2017 and February 2019. Data from electronic and hardcopy files were gathered and analyzed. The diagnosis of acute EO was based on clinical, laboratory, and radiological findings. A total of 120 patients under the diagnosis of EO, epididymitis, and orchitis were reviewed. Thirty-one patients were tested for Brucella based on the history of animal contact, ingestion of unpasteurized dairy products, or persistent fever for more than 48 h. of those patients, 11 tested positive for Brucella orchitis. Results: A comparison between Brucella-positive and Brucella-negative patients regarding age, presence of fever, complete blood count (CBC) parameters, pyuria, and abscess formation was made. In the Brucella group, 72% of the patients had a history of animal contact compared to 33% in non-Brucella group (P = 0.006). When comparing CBC parameters in the two groups, Brucella group had statistically significant lower total leukocytic count and neutrophil count (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) 13.07 ± 4.22, 6.4 ± 9.98 versus Brucella negative group 17.35 ± 5.28, 7.8 ± 10.53, and P values were 0.037 and 0.004, respectively. Brucella group showed lymphocytosis (mean ± SD) 25.95 ± 9.78 versus non-Brucella group 13.22 ± 8.05 and P < 0.01. Conclusion: Brucella orchitis constituted 9% of the orchitis patients treated in our hospital. Patients with a history of animal contact, EO with lymphocytosis, and relative neutropenia should raise the suspicion for Brucella orchitis in endemic areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]