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

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

Whole-exome sequencing of familial cases of multiple morphological abnormalities of the sperm flagella (MMAF) reveals new DNAH1 mutations

STUDY QUESTION: Can whole-exome sequencing (WES) of patients with multiple morphological abnormalities of the sperm flagella (MMAF) identify causal mutations in new genes or mutations in the previously identified dynein axonemal heavy chain 1 (DNAH1) gene? SUMMARY ANSWER: WES for six families with men affected by MMAF syndrome allowed the identification of DNAH1 mutations in four affected men distributed in two out of the six families but no new candidate genes were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Mutations in DNAH1, an axonemal inner dynein arm heavy chain gene, have been shown to be responsible for male infertility due to a characteristic form of asthenozoospermia called MMAF, defined by the presence in the ejaculate of spermatozoa with a mosaic of flagellar abnormalities including absent, coiled, bent, angulated, irregular and short flagella. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a retrospective genetics study of patients presenting a MMAF phenotype. Patients were recruited in Iran and Italy between 2008 and 2015. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: WES was performed for a total of 10 subjects. All identified variants were confirmed by Sanger sequencing. Two additional affected family members were analyzed by direct Sanger sequencing. To establish the prevalence of the DNAH1 mutation identified in an Iranian family, we carried out targeted sequencing on 38 additional MMAF patients of the same geographical origin. RT-PCR and immunochemistry were performed on sperm samples to assess the effect of the identified mutation on RNA and protein. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: WES in six families identified a causal mutations in two families. Two additional affected family members were confirmed to hold the same homozygous mutation as their sibling. In total, DNAH1 mutations were identified in 5 out of 12 analyzed subjects (41.7%). If we only include index cases, we detected two mutated subjects out of six (33%) tested MMAF individuals. Furthermore we sequenced one DNAH1 exon found to be mutated (c.8626-1G > A) in an Iranian family in an additional 38 MMAF patients from Iran. One of these patients carried the variant confirming that this variant is relatively frequent in the Iranian population. The effect of the c.8626-1G > A variant was confirmed by RT-PCR and immunochemistry as no RNA or protein could be observed in sperm from the affected men. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: WES allows the amplification of 80-90% of all coding exons. It is possible that some DNAH1 exons may not have been sequenced and that we may have missed some additional mutations. Also, WES cannot identify deep intronic mutations and it is not efficient for detection of large genomic events (deletions, insertions, inversions). We did not identify any causal mutations in DNAH1 or in other candidate genes in four out of the six tested families. This indicates that the technique and/or the analysis of our data can be improved to increase the diagnosis efficiency. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our findings confirm that DNAH1 is one of the main genes involved in MMAF syndrome. It is a large gene with 78 exons making it challenging and expensive to sequence using the traditional Sanger sequencing methods. We show that WES sequencing is good alternative to Sanger sequencing to reach a genetic diagnosis in patients with severe male infertility phenotypes

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