RESUMO
PURPOSE: Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) represents the persistent absence of sperm in ejaculate without obstruction, stemming from diverse disease processes. This survey explores global practices in NOA diagnosis, comparing them with guidelines and offering expert recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 56-item questionnaire survey on NOA diagnosis and management was conducted globally from July to September 2022. This paper focuses on part 1, evaluating NOA diagnosis. Data from 367 participants across 49 countries were analyzed descriptively, with a Delphi process used for expert recommendations. RESULTS: Of 336 eligible responses, most participants were experienced attending physicians (70.93%). To diagnose azoospermia definitively, 81.7% requested two semen samples. Commonly ordered hormone tests included serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (97.0%), total testosterone (92.9%), and luteinizing hormone (86.9%). Genetic testing was requested by 66.6%, with karyotype analysis (86.2%) and Y chromosome microdeletions (88.3%) prevalent. Diagnostic testicular biopsy, distinguishing obstructive azoospermia (OA) from NOA, was not performed by 45.1%, while 34.6% did it selectively. Differentiation relied on physical examination (76.1%), serum hormone profiles (69.6%), and semen tests (68.1%). Expectations of finding sperm surgically were higher in men with normal FSH, larger testes, and a history of sperm in ejaculate. CONCLUSIONS: This expert survey, encompassing 367 participants from 49 countries, unveils congruence with recommended guidelines in NOA diagnosis. However, noteworthy disparities in practices suggest a need for evidence-based, international consensus guidelines to standardize NOA evaluation, addressing existing gaps in professional recommendations.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) is a common, but complex problem, with multiple therapeutic options and a lack of clear guidelines. Hence, there is considerable controversy and marked variation in the management of NOA. This survey evaluates contemporary global practices related to medical and surgical management for patients with NOA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 56-question online survey covering various aspects of the evaluation and management of NOA was sent to specialists around the globe. This paper analyzes the results of the second half of the survey dealing with the management of NOA. Results have been compared to current guidelines, and expert recommendations have been provided using a Delphi process. RESULTS: Participants from 49 countries submitted 336 valid responses. Hormonal therapy for 3 to 6 months was suggested before surgical sperm retrieval (SSR) by 29.6% and 23.6% of participants for normogonadotropic hypogonadism and hypergonadotropic hypogonadism respectively. The SSR rate was reported as 50.0% by 26.0% to 50.0% of participants. Interestingly, 46.0% reported successful SSR in <10% of men with Klinefelter syndrome and 41.3% routinely recommended preimplantation genetic testing. Varicocele repair prior to SSR is recommended by 57.7%. Half of the respondents (57.4%) reported using ultrasound to identify the most vascularized areas in the testis for SSR. One-third proceed directly to microdissection testicular sperm extraction (mTESE) in every case of NOA while others use a staged approach. After a failed conventional TESE, 23.8% wait for 3 months, while 33.1% wait for 6 months before proceeding to mTESE. The cut-off of follicle-stimulating hormone for positive SSR was reported to be 12-19 IU/mL by 22.5% of participants and 20-40 IU/mL by 27.8%, while 31.8% reported no upper limit. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest survey to date on the real-world medical and surgical management of NOA by reproductive experts. It demonstrates a diverse practice pattern and highlights the need for evidence-based international consensus guidelines.
RESUMO
Background and Objective: Basic semen analysis is the first step in the evaluation of male infertility. It includes an assessment of sperm morphology which is believed to reflect on overall spermatogenesis and sperm function. Teratozoospermia, defined as abnormal sperm morphology, is frequently present in association with severe oligoasthenozoospermia, but isolated teratozoospermia (in the presence of normal counts and motility) is a poorly understood clinical entity with conflicting implications in terms of fertility potential and treatment strategies. The following paper aims to: (I) discuss the classification of sperm morphology, causes, and molecular mechanism of teratozoospermia; (II) analyze the clinical significance and potential treatment options of isolated teratozoospermia as a cause of male infertility and a predictor of fertility outcome; and (III) provide a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis based on the existing literature on this topic. Methods: A comprehensive search from database inception to 25 April 2023 was conducted in PubMed for relevant papers relating to isolated teratozoospermia in male infertility. Finally, seven systematic reviews/reviews/meta-analyses and 81 original articles were synthesized into the current narrative review. Key Content and Findings: Classification of sperm morphology has evolved significantly since the first edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) Manual of Human Semen Analysis. Kruger's strict criteria are the most used classification and have been shown to correlate with fertility outcomes. There are many causes of teratozoospermia including genetic and environmental factors and physical conditions like varicocele. Teratozoospermia correlates with sperm DNA damage, elevated oxidative stress, low antioxidant function, and apoptotic alterations, which can result in impaired spermatozoa function and lower pregnancy rates. However, the clinical correlation between teratozoospermia and assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcome shows conflicting data with recent meta-analyses suggesting that isolated teratozoospermia was not associated with poor fertility outcomes from ART and that intrauterine insemination (IUI) can be an effective option even in the presence of teratozoospermia. There is very limited data on effective therapeutic options to treat idiopathic isolated teratozoospermia. The opportunity for future research is huge to fill the gap in the medical literature on this topic. Conclusions: Contemporary literature on isolated teratozoospermia shows conflicting results in terms of its actual clinical implication in male infertility and the utility of available treatment options. Further research is warranted on this clinical entity to improve sperm function and future paternity.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: There are no published examples of a global online research collaborative in andrology. We describe the development, profile and member characteristics of the first consortium of this type, the Global Andrology Forum (GAF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey sent to all GAF members collected demographic information (sex, age, experience, academic title, degrees, country, specialty, profession). It also tapped data on members' characteristics e.g., skills in research, software and statistics; preferred activities; time commitments; expected roles; and interest in participating in research, in GAF's scientific activities and collaborative online research. The findings were analyzed and tabulated. We outline members' demographic and professional characteristics and scientific achievements to date. A narrative approach outlined GAF's structure and functioning. RESULTS: A total of 418 out of 540 members completed the survey and were included in the analysis (77.4% response rate). The sample comprised mainly urologists (34.2%) and a third of the respondents had practiced for >15 years (33.3%). Up to 86.1% of the members expressed interest in being actively engaged in writing scientific articles. A third of the sample (37.1%) could dedicate 4 to 6 hours/week. Few respondents reported skills in statistics and artwork (2.6% and 1.9% respectively). Members were assigned to specific roles based on their expertise and experiences. Collaborative working ensured the timely completion of projects while maintaining quality. For outcomes, GAF published 29 original articles within one year of its creation, with authors from 48 countries spanning topics that included varicocele, sperm DNA damage, oxidative stress, semen analysis and male infertility, oocyte/embryo, and laboratory issues of assisted reproductive technique (ART) and male infertility evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: GAF is a successful global online andrology research model. A healthy number of scientific articles have been published. Given such effectiveness, adopting the GAF model could be useful for other disciplines that wish to create and coordinate successful international online research groups.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: This is the first study to design and assess a research capacity building (RCB) specifically tailored for clinical and non-clinical andrology practitioners worldwide. We appraised: 1) the barriers and enablers to research among these practitioners; 2) attendees' satisfaction with the webinar; and 3) research knowledge acquisition as a result of the webinar (before/after quiz). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A online RCB webinar was designed, comprising two presentations in research design and systematic review/meta-analysis (SR/MA). An online survey using validated published questionnaires assessed the three above-stated objectives. Paired t-test compared the means of the pre- and post-webinar scores. Subgroup analysis was performed on the participants' professional background, sex, and number of years in practice. RESULTS: A total of 237 participants attended the webinar, of which 184 completed the survey and are included in the current analysis. Male participants were about double the females and 60.9% were from Asian countries. The most common research enablers were to publish scientific papers (14.8%) and to develop research (14.7%) or new skills (12.7%). The most common barriers were the lack of training in research (12.4%), training in research software (11.8%), and time for research (11.8%). Satisfaction with the webinar was considerably high (86.3%-88.4%) for the different features of the webinar. Compared to the pre-webinar knowledge level, there were significant improvements in participants' research knowledge acquisition after the webinar in terms of the total score for the quiz (13.7±4.31 vs. 21.5±4.7), as well as the scores for the study design (7.12±2.37 vs. 11.5±2.69) and SR/MA sessions (6.63±2.63 vs. 9.93±2.49) (p<0.001 for each). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and non-clinical andrology webinar attendees recognized the importance of research and exhibited a range of research skills, knowledge and experience. There were significant improvements in the participants' knowledge and understanding of the components of scientific research. We propose an RCB model that can be implemented and further modeled by organizations with similar academic research goals.