Decision regret among couples experiencing infertility: a mixed methods longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Decisions for how to resolve infertility are complex and may lead to regret. We examined whether couples and individuals who sought a consultation from a reproductive specialist for infertility later expressed decisional regret about their family-building choices and whether regret was associated with parental role, family-building paths, or outcomes. METHODS: This longitudinal mixed methods study included women and their partners who completed a questionnaire prior to their initial consultation with a reproductive specialist and 6 years later. The six-year questionnaire included the Ottawa Decision Regret Scale referencing "the decisions you made about how to add a child to your family." A score of 25+ indicates moderate-to-severe regret. Additional items invited reflections on family-building decisions, treatments, and costs. A systematic content analysis assessed qualitative themes. RESULTS: Forty-five couples and 34 individuals participated in the six-year questionnaire (76% retention rate), Half (n = 61) of participants expressed no regret, which was similar by role (median 0 for women and supporting partners, F = .08; p = .77). One in 5 women and 1 in 7 partners expressed moderate-to-severe regret. Women who did not pursue any treatment had significantly higher regret (median 15; F = 5.6, p < 0.01) compared to those who pursued IVF (median 0) or other treatments (median 0). Women who did not add a child to their family had significantly higher regret (median 35; F = 10.1, p < 0.001) than those who added a child through treatment (median 0), through fostering/adoption (median 0), or naturally (median 5). Among partners, regret scores were not associated with family-building paths or outcomes. More than one-quarter of participants wished they had spent less money trying to add a child to their family. Qualitative themes included gratitude for parenthood despite the burdensome process of family-building as well as dissatisfaction or regret about the process. Results should be confirmed in other settings to increase generalizability. CONCLUSION: This longitudinal study provides new insight into the burden of infertility. For women seeking parenthood, any of the multiple paths to parenthood may prevent future decision regret. Greater psychosocial, financial, and decision support is needed to help patients and their partners navigate family-building with minimal regret.

When people experience infertility, there are many decisions that can be challenging, such as whether to seek fertility treatments, to pursue fostering/adoption, and how to manage costs. With each decision, there is an opportunity for regret. The goal of this study was to look at whether people who were experiencing infertility and made an appointment with a doctor who specializes in infertility felt any regret about their decisions 6 years later. We also looked at whether different roles (that is, women seeking pregnancy or their supporting partners), different family-building paths (that is, medical treatments or not), or different outcomes (that is, adding a child to their family or not) were associated with different levels of regret. Results showed that half of the 120 people in the study did not have any regret 6 years after meeting with a specialty doctor. However, some patients did have regret, including 20% of women and 14% of partners who expressed moderate-to-severe regret. Women who did not add a child to their family in the six years during the study reported higher regret compared to women who did add a child to their family. There were no such differences among partners. About 25% of participants wished they had tried more, fewer, or different treatments. More than 25% wished they spent less money to try to add a child to their family. For people who want to add a child to their family, there are multiple ways to become a parent, any of which may be linked to lower decision regret. Decision regret is experienced differently between women seeking to add a child to their family and their partners. Would-be parents need more emotional, financial, and decision making support to help them navigate family-building with minimal regret.

Practice and development of male contraception: European Academy of Andrology and American Society of Andrology guidelines.

BACKGROUNDS: Despite a wide spectrum of contraceptive methods for women, the unintended pregnancy rate remains high (45% in the US), with 50% resulting in abortion. Currently, 20% of global contraceptive use is male-directed, with a wide variation among countries due to limited availability and lack of efficacy. Worldwide studies indicate that >50% of men would opt to use a reversible method, and 90% of women would rely on their partner to use a contraceptive. Additional reasons for novel male contraceptive methods to be available include the increased life expectancy, sharing the reproductive risks among partners, social issues, the lack of pharma industry involvement and the lack of opinion makers advocating for male contraception. AIM: The present guidelines aim to review the status regarding male contraception, the current state of the art to support the clinical practice, recommend minimal requirements for new male contraceptive development and provide and grade updated, evidence-based recommendations from the European Society of Andrology (EAA) and the American Society of Andrology (ASA). METHODS: An expert panel of academicians appointed by the EAA and the ASA generated a consensus guideline according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. RESULTS: Sixty evidence-based and graded recommendations were produced on couple-centered communication, behaviors, barrier methods, semen analysis and contraceptive efficacy, physical agents, surgical methods, actions before initiating male contraception, hormonal methods, non-hormonal methods, vaccines, and social and ethical considerations. CONCLUSION: As gender roles transform and gender equity is established in relationships, the male contribution to family planning must be facilitated. Efficient and safe male-directed methods must be evaluated and introduced into clinical practice, preferably reversible, either hormonal or non-hormonal. From a future perspective, identifying new hormonal combinations, suitable testicular targets, and emerging vas occlusion methods will produce novel molecules and products for male contraception.

An Online Investigation Into Direct-to-Consumer Men's Health Clinics: The Who, What, and Where.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize direct-to-consumer (DTC) men's health clinics by reviewing their online content. Increasing numbers of patients are seeking treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED) and hypogonadism from DTC "men's health" clinics. Treatments are often used off-label, with lack of transparency of provider credentials and qualifications. METHODS: We identified DTC Men's Health Clinics in the United States by internet search by state using the terms, "Men's Health Clinic," and "Low T Center." All stand-alone clinics were reviewed. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-three clinics were reviewed, with 147 (65.9%) offered ED treatments and 196 (87.9%) offering testosterone replacement, and 120 (53.8%) offering both ED treatment and testosterone replacement. Of those clinics offering ED treatments, 93 (63.3%) advertised shockwave therapy and 84 (57.1%) PRP therapy. There were 56 (38%) who offered shockwave therapy and PRP. ICI was significantly more likely to be offered if there was a urologist on staff (p <.001). Clinic providers represented 20 different medical and alternative medicine specialties. Internal medicine was most common (17.4%), followed by family medicine (11.1%). A nonphysician (nurse practitioner or physician assistant) was listed as the primary provider in 10 clinics (4.5%) and 45 clinics (20.1%) did not list their providers. Urologists were listed as the primary provider in 10.3% of clinics. A naturopathic provider was listed as a staff member in 22 (11.6%) of clinics. CONCLUSION: There is significant heterogeneity and misinformation available to the public regarding men's health. Familiarity with and insight into practice patterns of "men's health" clinics will help provide informed patient care and counseling.

Vasectomy Regret Among Childless Men.

OBJECTIVE: To address historical concerns surrounding vasectomy in childless men, we sought to evaluate for the level of regret in this unique cohort. METHODS: The records of patients who underwent vasectomy via single surgeon between 2006 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed and those who had not fathered children in any capacity at time of vasectomy were selected. We devised a 6-question survey inquiring about regret and thoughts on vasectomy reversal and assisted reproductive technology (ART). The questions are listed in Table 1. Patients were queried via a telephone call to rate their level of regret, both immediately after vasectomy and present day. The cohort was analyzed via age at time of vasectomy, time since vasectomy and marital status. RESULTS: There were 4812 overall patients who underwent vasectomy in this interval, with 205 (4.3%) who were childless. The response rate was 33.2% (68/205). Average age was 36.6 years with average time since vasectomy at time of phone call was 5.51 years. Regret rate was 4.4% immediately following vasectomy and 7.4% at time of telephone interview. A confirmatory, second consultation before vasectomy was present in 6.8% (14/205). The majority of patients 150/205 (73.1%) were married. When patients were stratified by marital status, there was no significant difference in any of the questions. The majority of patients were satisfied with their decision, with few contemplating or pursuing reversal or ART (Table 1). CONCLUSION: Regret in childless patients who undergo vasectomy is very rare, with the majority of patients feeling that their life was improved.

Diverse monogenic subforms of human spermatogenic failure.

Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) is the most severe form of male infertility and typically incurable. Defining the genetic basis of NOA has proven challenging, and the most advanced classification of NOA subforms is not based on genetics, but simple description of testis histology. In this study, we exome-sequenced over 1000 clinically diagnosed NOA cases and identified a plausible recessive Mendelian cause in 20%. We find further support for 21 genes in a 2-stage burden test with 2072 cases and 11,587 fertile controls. The disrupted genes are primarily on the autosomes, enriched for undescribed human "knockouts", and, for the most part, have yet to be linked to a Mendelian trait. Integration with single-cell RNA sequencing data shows that azoospermia genes can be grouped into molecular subforms with synchronized expression patterns, and analogs of these subforms exist in mice. This analysis framework identifies groups of genes with known roles in spermatogenesis but also reveals unrecognized subforms, such as a set of genes expressed across mitotic divisions of differentiating spermatogonia. Our findings highlight NOA as an understudied Mendelian disorder and provide a conceptual structure for organizing the complex genetics of male infertility, which may provide a rational basis for disease classification.

Testosterone-Mediated Aggression in Angelman Syndrome Treated With Leuprolide and Orchiectomy.

Angelman syndrome (AS) is a rare genetic imprinting disorder characterized by a maternal microdeletion of the 15q11q13 locus. It is traditionally associated with intellectual disability, inappropriate laughing, and a happy demeanor. Here, we report a patient with AS who presented with aggression and hypersexuality and was successfully treated with leuprolide injections for nine years until a definitive orchiectomy was performed. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of castration as a treatment for refractory behavioral symptoms in a patient with AS.

One size does not fit all: variations by ethnicity in demographic characteristics of men seeking fertility treatment across North America.

OBJECTIVE: To compare racial differences in male fertility history and treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. SETTING: North American reproductive urology centers. PATIENT(S): Males undergoing urologist fertility evaluation. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Demographic and reproductive Andrology Research Consortium data. RESULT(S): The racial breakdown of 6,462 men was: 51% White, 20% Asian/Indo-Canadian/Indo-American, 6% Black, 1% Indian/Native, <1% Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and 21% "Other". White males sought evaluation sooner (3.5 ± 4.7 vs. 3.8 ± 4.2 years), had older partners (33.3 ± 4.9 vs. 32.9 ± 5.2 years), and more had undergone vasectomy (8.4% vs. 2.9%) vs. all other races. Black males were older (38.0 ± 8.1 vs. 36.5 ± 7.4 years), sought fertility evaluation later (4.8 ± 5.1 vs. 3.6 ± 4.4 years), fewer had undergone vasectomy (3.3% vs. 5.9%), and fewer had partners who underwent intrauterine insemination (8.2% vs. 12.6%) compared with all other races. Asian/Indo-Canadian/Indo-American patients were younger (36.1 ± 7.2 vs. 36.7 ± 7.6 years), fewer had undergone vasectomy (1.2% vs. 6.9%), and more had partners who underwent intrauterine insemination (14.2% vs. 11.9%). Indian/Native males sought evaluation later (5.1 ± 6.8 vs. 3.6 ± 4.4 years) and more had undergone vasectomy (13.4% vs. 5.7%). CONCLUSION(S): Racial differences exist for males undergoing fertility evaluation by a reproductive urologist. Better understanding of these differences in history in conjunction with societal and biologic factors can guide personalized care, as well as help to better understand and address disparities in access to fertility evaluation and treatment.

Impact of Fellowship-Trained Andrology and Sexual Medicine Specialists on Performance on the Annual American Urological Association In-Service Examination.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the distribution and impact of fellowship-trained andrology and/or sexual medicine urological specialists (FTAUS) on resident in-service examination (ISE) performance. METHODS: Residency program websites were accessed to create a database of FTAUS in the United States between 2007 and 2017. This database was reviewed by three separate FTAUS and cross referenced with membership lists to the Sexual Medicine of North America Society and the Society for the Study of Male Reproduction. De-identified ISE scores were obtained from the American Urological Association from 2007-2017 and scores from trainees at programs with a FTAUS were identified for comparison. Resident performance was analyzed using a linear model of the effect of a resident being at a program with an FTAUS, adjusting for post-graduate year. RESULTS: ISE data from 13,757 residents were obtained for the years 2007-2017. The number of FTAUS in the United States increased from 40-102 during this study period. Mean raw scores on the "Sexual Dysfunction, Endocrinopathy, Fertility Problems" (SDEFP) section of the ISE ranged from 52.1% ± 17.7% to 65.7% ± 16% (mean ± SD). Throughout the study period, there was no difference in performance within the SDEFP section (P < .01). Residents at a program with a FTAUS answered 0.95% more questions correctly in the SDEFP than those without a FTAUS (P < .001). For these residents, there was an improvement of approximately 0.66% on the percentage of questions answered correctly on the ISE overall (P < .001). Performance improved significantly as residents progressed from PGY-2-PGY-5. CONCLUSION: There is a small but statistically significant improvement in overall ISE and SDEFP sub-section performance.

Is Opioid-free Post-Vasectomy Analgesia a Pain? A Single Surgeon Experience.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of transitioning from opioid to non-opioid analgesia post-vasectomy on unplanned opioid prescriptions and health encounters. METHODS: A retrospective review for patients who underwent vasectomy from October 2018 through December 2019 was performed. Beginning February 1st, 2019, patients were counseled to take scheduled acetaminophen and ibuprofen in lieu of acetaminophen with codeine, with an opioid prescription only provided upon request. Analysis was performed comparing 200 consecutive patients before and after this transition. Baseline patient characteristics, unplanned postoperative encounters for pain within 30 days of vasectomy, and associated narcotic prescriptions were compared between groups. RESULTS: 400 patients were included, consisting of 200 patients pre and 200 patients postintervention. There were no differences in socioeconomic characteristics between groups. No differences between the pre- and postintervention groups were observed in terms of generating telephone calls to clinic (9% vs 11%, P = .5), clinic visits (2.5% vs 2.5%, P = 1), or ED visits (0% vs 1%), P = .5) for the pre and postintervention cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients that are not prescribed opioids after vasectomy do not generate additional phone calls, clinic, or ED visits compared to those that were routinely prescribed prior to our institutional change. We have permanently discontinued the routine use of opioids for post-vasectomy analgesia. Other physicians performing vasectomy should consider making this change as well.

The Impact of Physician Productivity Models on Access to Subspecialty Care: A White Paper From the Society for the Study of Male Reproduction and the Society for Male Reproduction and Urology.

Male infertility is a common disease. Male infertility is also a core competency of urology training and clinical practice. In this white paper from the Society for the Study of Male Reproduction and the Society for Male Reproduction and Urology, we identify and define different physician productivity plans. We then describe the advantages and disadvantages of various physician productivity measurement systems for male infertility practices. We close with recommendations for measuring productivity that we hope urologists and administrators can use when creating productivity plans for male infertility practices.

Diagnosis and treatment of infertility in men: AUA/ASRM guideline part II.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline. Part II outlines the appropriate management of the male in an infertile couple. Medical therapies, surgical techniques, as well as use of intrauterine insemination (IUI)/in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are covered to allow for optimal patient management. Please refer to Part I for discussion on evaluation of the infertile male and discussion of relevant health conditions that are associated with male infertility. MATERIALS/METHODS: The Emergency Care Research Institute Evidence-based Practice Center team searched PubMed®, Embase®, and Medline from January 2000 through May 2019. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions. (Table 1) This summary is being simultaneously published in Fertility and Sterility and The Journal of Urology. RESULTS: This Guideline provides updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding management of male infertility. Such recommendations are summarized in the associated algorithm. (Figure 1) CONCLUSION: Male contributions to infertility are prevalent, and specific treatment as well as assisted reproductive techniques are effective at managing male infertility. This document will undergo additional literature reviews and updating as the knowledge regarding current treatments and future treatment options continues to expand.

Diagnosis and treatment of infertility in men: AUA/ASRM guideline part I.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline. Part I outlines the appropriate evaluation of the male in an infertile couple. Recommendations proceed from obtaining an appropriate history and physical exam (Appendix I), as well as diagnostic testing, where indicated. MATERIALS/METHODS: The Emergency Care Research Institute Evidence-based Practice Center team searched PubMed®, Embase®, and Medline from January, 2000 through May, 2019. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions. (Table 1) This summary is being simultaneously published in Fertility and Sterility and The Journal of Urology. RESULTS: This Guideline provides updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding evaluation of male infertility as well as the association of male infertility with other important health conditions. The detection of male infertility increases the risk of subsequent development of health problems for men. In addition, specific medical conditions are associated with some causes for male infertility. Evaluation and treatment recommendations are summarized in the associated algorithm. (Figure 1) CONCLUSION: The presence of male infertility is crucial to the health of patients and its effects must be considered for the welfare of society. This document will undergo updating as the knowledge regarding current treatments and future treatment options continues to expand.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline Part I.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline. Part I outlines the appropriate evaluation of the male in an infertile couple. Recommendations proceed from obtaining an appropriate history and physical exam (Appendix I), as well as diagnostic testing, where indicated. MATERIALS/METHODS: The Emergency Care Research Institute Evidence-based Practice Center team searched PubMed®, Embase®, and Medline from January, 2000 through May, 2019. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table 1[Table: see text]). This summary is being simultaneously published in Fertility and Sterility and The Journal of Urology. RESULTS: This Guideline provides updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding evaluation of male infertility as well as the association of male infertility with other important health conditions. The detection of male infertility increases the risk of subsequent development of health problems for men. In addition, specific medical conditions are associated with some causes for male infertility. Evaluation and treatment recommendations are summarized in the associated algorithm (figure[Figure: see text]). CONCLUSION: The presence of male infertility is crucial to the health of patients and its effects must be considered for the welfare of society. This document will undergo updating as the knowledge regarding current treatments and future treatment options continues to expand.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline PART II.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the two-part series dedicated to the Diagnosis and Treatment of Infertility in Men: AUA/ASRM Guideline. Part II outlines the appropriate management of the male in an infertile couple. Medical therapies, surgical techniques, as well as use of intrauterine insemination (IUI)/in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are covered to allow for optimal patient management. Please refer to Part I for discussion on evaluation of the infertile male and discussion of relevant health conditions that are associated with male infertility. MATERIALS/METHODS: The Emergency Care Research Institute Evidence-based Practice Center team searched PubMed®, Embase®, and Medline from January 2000 through May 2019. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (table[Table: see text]). This summary is being simultaneously published in Fertility and Sterility and The Journal of Urology. RESULTS: This Guideline provides updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding management of male infertility. Such recommendations are summarized in the associated algorithm (figure[Figure: see text]). CONCLUSION: Male contributions to infertility are prevalent, and specific treatment as well as assisted reproductive techniques are effective at managing male infertility. This document will undergo additional literature reviews and updating as the knowledge regarding current treatments and future treatment options continues to expand.

Pre-treatment estradiol does not predict testosterone response to clomiphene citrate.

BACKGROUND: Clomiphene citrate (CC) is a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) used to stimulate ovulation in women. CC is used off-label in men to increase levels of endogenous testosterone (T) while potentially improving semen parameters by downregulating the inhibitory feedback of estradiol (E) on the male hypothalamus. Our objective was to determine whether pre-treatment E level is associated with greater total testosterone (TT) response to treatment with CC in men with low T. METHODS: Following IRB approval (The University of Miami IRB No. 20170849), retrospective chart review was performed for all men prescribed CC (25 mg every other day) between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018. Age, body mass index (BMI), and prescription date were recorded for all patients. Pre- and post-treatment E, total T (TT), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and luteinizing hormone (LH) levels were recorded for all patients as well. Only men with pretreatment TT <300 ng/dL were included in the analysis in order to focus our study on men with low TT. Univariate linear regression analysis was performed to determinate the percent change in TT following CC treatment (dependent variable) and pre-treatment E and other variables including age, BMI, FSH, and LH (independent variables). RESULTS: A total of 69 men with TT <300 ng/dL received CC 25 mg every other day. Mean age and BMI were 33.3±7.31 years and 35.4±5 kg/m2 respectively. Median pre-treatment E, TT, FSH, and LH were 18 [11.35-24.6] pg/mL, 226 [156-262] ng/dL, 5.1 [2.98-8.05] mIU/mL, and 4.5 [2.6-6.8] mIU/mL respectively. Post-treatment TT was 389 [263-592] ng/dL and TT% change was 102 [45.51-176.75]. Univariate linear regression showed that pre-treatment E (B=-0.595; R2=0.001; P=0.757) did not significantly predict TT% change. TT% change could be significantly predicted by age in years (B=-7.428; R2=0.057; P=0.048), pre-treatment FSH (B=-8.362; R2=0.068; P=0.041), and pre-treatment LH (B=-20.67; R2=0.096; P=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-treatment E level does not appear to predict treatment response with CC in men with low T.

Prednisone after vasectomy reversal may improve semen parameters: one institution's experience.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with suboptimal semen parameters following vasectomy reversal represent a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. This may be caused by either partial or complete anastomotic obstruction. Despite the relatively common clinical use of corticosteroids in this patient population, data remain sparse. Thus, we set out to evaluate the safety and efficacy of prednisone after vasectomy reversal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A chart review was performed from January 1, 2008 to September 30, 2018 to identify men in which prednisone was used for suspected anastomotic obstruction after vasectomy reversal. Obstruction was based on sub-optimal or decreasing semen parameters and physical exam findings. A course consisted of 2 weeks of 20 mg PO daily followed by 2 weeks of 10 mg PO daily. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were identified in which prednisone was used postoperatively. Total motile sperm counts were found to increase in the overall cohort by 10.5 million (p < 0.0002) after a course of prednisone. On sub-group analysis, men who had a bilateral vasovasostomy (VV) or VV/vasoepididymostomy experienced an increase in total motile sperm counts by 13.4 million (p < 0.0012) and 6.2 million (p < 0.014), respectively. Patients who were patent at the time of prednisone treatment were more likely to see an improvement in total motile sperm counts (76.9% versus 33.3%, p < 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Prednisone seems to be safe and potentially efficacious in men with suspected anastomotic obstruction following vasectomy reversals. Further studies are needed to more conclusively determine the treatment's effectiveness in this patient cohort.

Resolution of Abdominal Pain After Coil Embolization of Varicocele with Robotic Resection of Gonadal Vein.

Background: Chronic pain in the region of varicocele embolization is not well described and can be a challenging symptom to manage, with limited options for treatment after failing conservative measures. It is important to counsel patients of this potential complication when determining the best option for varicocele repair. To our knowledge, there are no reported cases of gonadal vein excision for chronic abdominal pain after coil embolization. Case Presentation: A 63-year-old Caucasian male presented to our urology clinic after coil embolization. His testicular pain resolved but he reported new left-sided abdominal pain after coil embolization for a large left varicocele. After failing conservative measures including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics, and prednisone, he was referred for further work-up and to discuss treatment options. On presentation, the patient reported pain on the left side of his abdomen consistent with the location of gonadal vein. After extensive counseling that surgical removal may not alleviate his pain, robotic gonadal vein excision was offered, and the patient elected to proceed. Intraoperatively, the coils were easily seen through the wall of the vessel. This segment of the gonadal vein containing the coil was excised in its entirety. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 1 with only nonsteroidal pain medications. Six weeks postoperatively, the patient reported no complications, and almost complete resolution of his preoperative pain. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first case report demonstrating the surgical removal of the gonadal vein for treatment of chronic abdominal pain after varicocele embolization. After failing conservative measures, this may present another viable treatment option to address this difficult complication in a select group of patients.