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

Technical Aspects and Clinical Limitations of Sperm DNA Fragmentation Testing in Male Infertility: A Global Survey, Current Guidelines, and Expert Recommendations

PURPOSE: Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is a functional sperm abnormality that can impact reproductive potential, for which four assays have been described in the recently published sixth edition of the WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. The purpose of this study was to examine the global practices related to the use of SDF assays and investigate the barriers and limitations that clinicians face in incorporating these tests into their practice. 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

Technical aspects and clinical limitations of sperm DNA fragmentation testing in male infertility: A global survey, current guidelines, and expert recommendations

Purpose Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is a functional sperm abnormality that can impact reproductive potential, for which four assays have been described in the recently published sixth edition of the WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. The purpose of this study was to examine the global practices related to the use of SDF assays and investigate the barriers and limitations that clinicians face in incorporating these tests into their practice. 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

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

Validation of LensHooke® X1 PRO and Computer-Assisted Semen Analyzer Compared with Laboratory-Based Manual Semen Analysis

Purpose: To compare two automated semen quality analysis systems (LensHooke® X1 PRO [X1 PRO]) and IVOS CASA) for accuracy, precision and agreement with laboratory-based manual semen analysis (MSA). Materials and Materials and Methods:Methods: Semen samples (n=31) were obtained from normozoospermic healthy male volunteers and infertile men with a minimum abstinence period between 2–3 days. After complete liquefaction, 101 seminal aliquots were prepared and tested according to WHO 5th Edition (2010) guidelines. The results obtained by X1 PRO and IVOS CASA were com-pared with that of MSA. Additionally, 10 samples were used to evaluate the intra- and inter-rater agreement for X1 PRO and MSA. Results:Results: The semen parameters (sperm concentration, total, and progressive motility) showed strong correlation and agree-ment for both automated semen analyzers and MSA (Spearman’s rank correlation ≥0.92, p0.91) and intra-rater (kappa >0.92) agreement for X1 PRO compared with MSA. Conclusions:Conclusions: Both automated semen analyzers demonstrated a high level of concordance and their performance was compa-rable with MSA analysis. Furthermore, high-levels of inter-and intra-rater reliability for semen analysis indicate that the new X1 PRO can be used in a clinical laboratory to offer accurate and quick test results

Sperm morphology assessment in the era of intracytoplasmic sperm injection: Reliable results require focus on standardization, quality control, and training

Semen analysis is the first, and frequently, the only step in the evaluation of male fertility. Although the laboratory procedures are conducted according to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, semen analysis and especially sperm morphology assessment is very difficult to standardize and obtain reproducible results. This is mainly due to the highly subjective nature of their evaluation. ICSI is the choice of treatment when sperm morphology is severely abnormal (teratozoospermic). Hence, the standardization of laboratory protocols for sperm morphology evaluation represents a fundamental step to ensure reliable, accurate and consistent laboratory results that avoid misdiagnoses and inadequate treatment of the infertile patient. This article aims to promote standardized laboratory procedures for an accurate evaluation of sperm morphology, including the establishment of quality control and quality assurance policies. Additionally, the clinical importance of sperm morphology results in assisted reproductive outcomes is discussed, along with the clinical management of teratozoospermic patients

A comprehensive guide to sperm recovery in infertile men with retrograde ejaculation

International audienceRetrograde ejaculation (RE) is a condition defined as the backward flow of the semen during ejaculation, and when present can result in male infertility. RE may be partial or complete, resulting in either low seminal volume or complete absence of the ejaculate (dry ejaculate). RE can result from anatomic, neurological or pharmacological conditions. The treatment approaches outlined are determined by the cause. Alkalinizing urinary pH with oral medications or by adding sperm wash media into the bladder prior to ejaculation may preserve the viability of the sperm. This article provides a step-by-step guide to diagnose RE and the optimal techniques to retrieve sperm. Copyrigh

Sperm Morphology Assessment in the Era of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection: Reliable Results Require Focus on Standardization, Quality Control, and Training

Semen analysis is the first, and frequently, the only step in the evaluation of male fertility. Although the laboratory procedures are conducted according to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, semen analysis and especially sperm morphology assessment is very difficult to standardize and obtain reproducible results. This is mainly due to the highly subjective nature of their evaluation. ICSI is the choice of treatment when sperm morphology is severely abnormal (teratozoospermic). Hence, the standardization of laboratory protocols for sperm morphology evaluation represents a fundamental step to ensure reliable, accurate and consistent laboratory results that avoid misdiagnoses and inadequate treatment of the infertile patient. This article aims to promote standardized laboratory procedures for an accurate evaluation of sperm morphology, including the establishment of quality control and quality assurance policies. Additionally, the clinical importance of sperm morphology results in assisted reproductive outcomes is discussed, along with the clinical management of teratozoospermic patients

Relevance of Leukocytospermia and Semen Culture and Its True Place in Diagnosing and Treating Male Infertility

The current WHO 2010 manual for human semen analysis defines leukocytospermia as the presence of peroxidase-positive leukocytes at a concentration >1x10(6)/mL of semen. Granular leukocytes when activated are capable of generating high levels of reactive oxygen species in semen resulting in oxidative stress. Oxidative stress has been correlated with poor sperm quality, increased level of sperm DNA fragmentation and low fertility potential. The presence of leukocytes and pathogens in the semen may be a sign of infection and/or localized inflammatory response in the male genital tract and the accessory glands. Common uro-pathogens including Chlamydia trachomatis, Ureaplasma urealyticum, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Mycoplasma hominis, and Escherichia coli can cause epididymitis, epididymo-orchitis, or prostatitis. The relationship between leukocytospermia and infection is unclear. Therefore, we describe the pathogens responsible for male genital tract infections and their association with leukocytospermia. The review also examines the diagnostic tests available to identify seminal leukocytes. The role of leukocytospermia in male infertility and its management is also discussed