RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The objective of this manuscript is to assess the effect of varicocele repair (VR) in patients with clinical varicoceles on serum total testosterone, luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and inhibin B serum levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was performed in compliance with the Meta-Analysis and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies (MOOSE) guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). All eligible studies were selected following the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison/Comparator, Outcomes, Study design) model. The values of each outcome measured after VR were compared to the before parameters and, when available, to the values on patients with unrepaired varicocele, and to those of healthy controls with no varicocele. For total testosterone, the values were sub-analyzed based on the mean total testosterone levels before VR (<300 ng/dL or >300 ng/dL), the fertility status, the time of follow-up and the technique used for VR. RESULTS: From a total of 460 abstracts retrieved, 48 articles were included in our meta-analysis. Serum total testosterone levels were significantly higher after VR compared to both pre-treatment levels (mean difference [MD] 82.45 ng/dL, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 64.14-100.76; p<0.00001) and to the levels of patients with unrepaired varicocele (MD 91.64 ng/dL, 95% CI: 62.30-120.99; p<0.00001). They did not differ from the levels of healthy controls with no varicocele (MD -22.01 ng/dL, 95% CI: -68.59-24.58; p=0.35). The increase resulted to be independent from the mean total testosterone levels before VR, fertility status, time of follow-up and type of VR. After VR, a trend toward lower serum LH levels was found compared to before values (MD -0.37 IU/L, 95% CI: -0.74-0.01; p=0.06). When compared to the levels of patients with unrepaired VR, LH levels after VR were significantly lower (MD -0.96 IU/L, 95% CI: -1.56 to -0.35; p=0.002). LH levels were not significantly higher than healthy men without varicocele (MD 0.84 IU/L, 95% CI: -0.68-2.36; p=0.28). Patients with VR had significantly lower FSH levels compared to their pre-treatment values (MD -1.43 IU/L, 95% CI: -1.82 to -1.04; p<0.00001), and also to those of patients with non-repaired varicocele (MD -2.35 IU/L, 95% CI: -4.06 to -0.65; p=0.007). When compared to healthy controls with no varicocele, FSH levels were significantly higher (MD 2.71 IU/L, 95% CI: 1.12-4.31; p=0.0009). Lastly, after VR no significant change in inhibin B serum levels was seen compared to pre-treatment levels (MD 11.76 pg/mL, 95% CI: -3.83-27.35; p=0.14). CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis is the largest to date to assess the impact of VR on Leydig cell and Sertoli cell function using a before-after analysis for uncontrolled studies, and using data from patients with unrepaired varicoceles or healthy patients without varicocele as controls. VR was found to increase and restore to normality serum levels of total testosterone and LH. This evidence could be of value in considering the treatment of varicocele in patients with low testosterone or those who show a progressive decline in testosterone levels.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to study the impact of varicocele repair in the largest cohort of infertile males with clinical varicocele by including all available studies, with no language restrictions, comparing intra-person conventional semen parameters before and after the repair of varicoceles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA-P and MOOSE guidelines. A systematic search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Eligible studies were selected according to the PICOS model (Population: infertile male patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: varicocele repair; Comparison: intra-person before-after varicocele repair; Outcome: conventional semen parameters; Study type: randomized controlled trials [RCTs], observational and case-control studies). RESULTS: Out of 1,632 screened abstracts, 351 articles (23 RCTs, 292 observational, and 36 case-control studies) were included in the quantitative analysis. The before-and-after analysis showed significant improvements in all semen parameters after varicocele repair (except sperm vitality); semen volume: standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.203, 95% CI: 0.129-0.278; p<0.001; I²=83.62%, Egger's p=0.3329; sperm concentration: SMD 1.590, 95% CI: 1.474-1.706; p<0.001; I²=97.86%, Egger's p<0.0001; total sperm count: SMD 1.824, 95% CI: 1.526-2.121; p<0.001; I²=97.88%, Egger's p=0.0063; total motile sperm count: SMD 1.643, 95% CI: 1.318-1.968; p<0.001; I²=98.65%, Egger's p=0.0003; progressive sperm motility: SMD 1.845, 95% CI: 1.537%-2.153%; p<0.001; I²=98.97%, Egger's p<0.0001; total sperm motility: SMD 1.613, 95% CI 1.467%-1.759%; p<0.001; l2=97.98%, Egger's p<0.001; sperm morphology: SMD 1.066, 95% CI 0.992%-1.211%; p<0.001; I²=97.87%, Egger's p=0.1864. CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis is the largest to date using paired analysis on varicocele patients. In the current meta-analysis, almost all conventional semen parameters improved significantly following varicocele repair in infertile patients with clinical varicocele.
RESUMEN
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<0.001; I²=97.6%), total sperm count (SMD 1.894; 95% CI 0.566 to 3.222; p<0.05; I²=97.8%), progressive sperm motility (SMD 3.301; 95% CI 2.164 to 4.437; p<0.01; I²=98.5%), total sperm motility (SMD 0.887; 95% CI 0.036 to 1.738; p=0.04; I²=97.3%) and normal sperm morphology (SMD 1.673; 95% CI 0.876 to 2.470; p<0.05; I²=98.5%). All the outcomes showed a high inter-study heterogeneity, but the sensitivity analysis showed that no study was sensitive enough to change these results. Publication bias was present only in the analysis of the sperm concentration and progressive motility. No significant difference was found for the semen volume (SMD 0.313; 95% CI -0.242 to 0.868; I²=89.7%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a high level of evidence in favor of a positive effect of VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men with clinical varicocele. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first SRMA to compare changes in conventional semen parameters after VR with changes in parameters of a control group over the same period. This is in contrast to other SRMAs which have compared semen parameters before and after VR, without reference to a control group. Our findings strengthen the available evidence and have a potential to upgrade professional societies' practice recommendations favoring VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men.
RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged as a new public health crisis, threatening almost all aspects of human life. Originating in bats, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is transmitted to humans through unknown intermediate hosts, where it is primarily known to cause pneumonia-like complications in the respiratory system. Organ-to-organ transmission has not been ruled out, thereby raising the possibility of the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on multiple organ systems. The male reproductive system has been hypothesized to be a potential target of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which is supported by some preliminary evidence. This may pose a global threat to male fertility potential, as men are more prone to SARS-CoV-2 infection than women, especially those of reproductive age. Preliminary reports have also indicated the possibility of sexual transmission of SARS-CoV-2. It may cause severe complications in infected couples. This review focuses on the pathophysiology of potential SARS-CoV-2 infection in the reproductive organs of males along with their invasion mechanisms. The risks of COVID-19 on male fertility as well as the differences in vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with females have also been highlighted.