One out of two idiopathic infertile men has pathologic sperm DNA fragmentation values: Potential implications for clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the distribution of sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) values and their association with clinical and seminal parameters in idiopathic infertile men. DESIGN, PATIENTS, MEASUREMENTS: Data from 3224 primary infertile men (belonging to couples having failed to conceive a pregnancy within 12 months) who underwent a thorough diagnostic work-up were analysed. A SDF value ≥ 30% (according to Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay) was considered pathologic. We excluded: (1) men with genetic abnormalities; (2) men with history of cryptorchidism; (3) men with biochemical hypogonadism; (4) men with clinical varicocele; and (5) men with other possible known aetiological factors. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were used to describe the whole cohort. RESULTS: Of all, 792 (23%) men with at least one abnormal WHO semen parameter but without any identified aetiologic factor for infertility, were considered as idiopathic infertile men. Of 792, 418 (52.7%) men had SDF ≥30%. Men with pathologic SDF were older (p = .02), had higher Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (p = .04) but lower total testosterone (p = .03) values than those with SDF <30%. The homoeostatic model assessment index for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was higher in men with SDF ≥30% (p = .01). Idiopathic infertile men with SDF ≥30% presented with lower sperm concentration (p < .001) and lower progressive sperm motility (p < .01) than those with SDF < 30%. Logistic regression analysis revealed that older age (OR: 1.1, p = .02) and higher HOMA-IR score (OR: 1.8, p = .03) were associated with SDF ≥ 30%, after accounting for FSH and sperm concentration values. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of infertile men categorized as idiopathic had pathologic SDF values. Idiopathic infertile men with pathologic SDF showed worse clinical, hormonal and semen parameters than those with normal SDF values. These results suggest that including SDF testing could be clinically relevant over the real-life management work-up of infertile men.

Understanding the Role of Ureteral Access Sheath in Preventing Post-Operative Infectious Complications in Stone Patients Treated with Ureteroscopy and Ho:YAG Laser Lithotripsy: Results from a Tertiary Care Referral Center.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The use of ureteral access sheaths (UAS) limits the irrigation-induced increase in intrarenal pressure during ureteroscopy (URS). We investigated the relationship between UAS and rates of postoperative infectious complications in stone patients treated with URS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 369 stone patients treated with URS from September 2016 to December 2021 at a single institution were analyzed. UAS (10/12 Fr) placement was attempted in case of intrarenal surgery. The chi-square test was used to assess the relationship between the use of UAS and fever, sepsis, and septic shock. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses tested the association of patients' characteristics and operative data and the rate of postoperative infectious complications. RESULTS: Full data collection of 451 URS procedures was available. Overall, UAS was used in 220 (48.8%) procedures. As for postoperative infectious sequalae, we recorded fever (n = 52; 11.5%), sepsis (n = 10; 2.2%), and septic shock (n = 6; 1.3%). Of those, UAS was not used in 29 (55.8%), 7 (70%), and 5 (83.3%) cases, respectively (all p > 0.05). At multivariable logistic regression analysis, performing URS without UAS was not associated with the risk of having fever and sepsis, but it increased the risk of septic shock (OR = 14.6; 95% CI = 1.08-197.1). Moreover, age-adjusted CCI score (for fever-OR = 1.23; 95% CI = 1.07-1.42, sepsis-OR = 1.47; 95% CI = 1.09-1.99, and septic shock-OR = 1.61; 95% CI = 1.08-2.42, respectively), history of fever secondary to stones (for fever-OR = 2.23; 95% CI = 1.02-4.90) and preoperative positive urine culture (for sepsis-OR = 4.87; 95% CI = 1.12-21.25) did emerge as further associated risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: The use of UAS emerged to prevent the onset of septic shock in patients treated with URS, with no clear benefit in terms of fever and sepsis. Further studies may help clarify whether the reduction in fluid reabsorption load mediated by UAS is protective against life-threatening conditions in case of infectious complications. The patients' baseline characteristics remain the main predictors of infectious sequelae in a clinical setting.