Artificial Intelligence in Andrology: From Semen Analysis to Image Diagnostics.

Artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine has gained a lot of momentum in the last decades and has been applied to various fields of medicine. Advances in computer science, medical informatics, robotics, and the need for personalized medicine have facilitated the role of AI in modern healthcare. Similarly, as in other fields, AI applications, such as machine learning, artificial neural networks, and deep learning, have shown great potential in andrology and reproductive medicine. AI-based tools are poised to become valuable assets with abilities to support and aid in diagnosing and treating male infertility, and in improving the accuracy of patient care. These automated, AI-based predictions may offer consistency and efficiency in terms of time and cost in infertility research and clinical management. In andrology and reproductive medicine, AI has been used for objective sperm, oocyte, and embryo selection, prediction of surgical outcomes, cost-effective assessment, development of robotic surgery, and clinical decision-making systems. In the future, better integration and implementation of AI into medicine will undoubtedly lead to pioneering evidence-based breakthroughs and the reshaping of andrology and reproductive medicine.

ICSI for non-male factor infertility: time to reappraise IVF?

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was initially introduced to overcome problems due of severe male factor infertility not being solved with conventional in-vitro fertilization (cIVF). However, recent years have witnessed an increasing use of ICSI by most assisted reproductive technique laboratories for non-male factor indications. Examples of the latter include previous fertilization failure after cIVF, few or poor-quality oocytes, immature oocytes, advanced maternal age, preimplantation genetics test (PGT), cryopreserved oocytes, and unexplained infertility. The replacement of cIVF with ICSI in several non-male factor infertility cases is probably because some reproductive specialists consider that ICSI is associated with better reproductive outcomes. Unfortunately, data on reproductive outcomes in favor of ICSI over cIVF are limited or absent. Therefore, the factors that can help define the use of one technique over the other should be identified. These should include the likelihood of fertilization failure, potential risks of the procedure, and its costs. In this review, we aim to highlight the current guidelines, advantages, and limitations of the use of cIVF/ICSI for infertility treatment. Additionally, we provide a comprehensive review of the use of ICSI in indications other than severe male factor infertility.

How to select healthy sperm for intracytoplasmic sperm injection in samples with high sperm DNA fragmentation?

The body of evidence supports the negative impact of increased sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) on natural fertility as well as assisted reproduction conditions. High SDF has been correlated with low pregnancy and delivery rates following intrauterine insemination. Also, high SDF is accused of reducing the rates of fertilization, implantation, pregnancy, and live birth following in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Despite no impact of high SDF on fertilization or pregnancy rates following intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), it has been correlated with poor embryo quality and a higher risk of miscarriage. Several methods have been introduced to help select sperm with the best DNA quality to be used in assisted reproductive technology procedures. These include magnetic-activated cell sorting, intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection, physiologic ICSI, and microfluidic sperm sorters, among others. This article aimed to discuss the impact of high SDF in infertile men on the reproductive outcome of couples undergoing IVF/ICSI. Additionally, this review highlights the principles, advantages, and limitations of different techniques that are currently used for the selection of sperm with intact DNA to be utilized for ICSI.

Sperm DNA fragmentation test: usefulness in assessing male fertility and assisted reproductive technology outcomes.

Male infertility is attributed to multiple factors including high levels of sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF). Conventional semen analysis continues to be the gold standard for diagnosis of male factor infertility around the world. However, the limitations of basic semen analysis have prompted the search for complementary assessments of sperm function and integrity. Sperm DNA fragmentation assays (direct or indirect) are emerging as important diagnostic tools in male infertility workups, and have been advocated for use in infertile couples for a variety of reasons. While a controlled degree of DNA nicking is required for appropriate DNA compaction, excessive fragmentation of sperm DNA is linked to impaired male fertility potential, decreased fertilization, poor embryo quality, recurrent pregnancy loss, and failure of assisted reproductive technology procedures. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding whether or not to employ SDF as a routine test for male infertility. This review compiles up-to-date information regarding the pathophysiology of SDF, the currently available SDF tests, and the role of SDF tests in natural and assisted conception conditions.

Sperm DNA Fragmentation: A Critical Assessment of Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is implicated in male infertility and adverse reproductive outcomes. With the publication of many studies regarding the etiologies and contributors to SDF, as well as the effects of SDF, guidelines are necessary to aid clinicians in the application of SDF for male fertility evaluation. Two recent clinical practice guidelines were published by Agarwal et al and Esteves et al. In this article, we have evaluated and compared both guidelines. We have found fairly similar recommendations between the two guidelines and have also highlighted the differences between them. Finally, we have summarized and combined the best practice recommendations from both guidelines.

A Comprehensive Guide to Sperm Recovery in Infertile Men with Retrograde Ejaculation.

Retrograde ejaculation (RE) is a condition defined as the backward flow of the semen during ejaculation, and when present can result in male infertility. RE may be partial or complete, resulting in either low seminal volume or complete absence of the ejaculate (dry ejaculate). RE can result from anatomic, neurological or pharmacological conditions. The treatment approaches outlined are determined by the cause. Alkalinizing urinary pH with oral medications or by adding sperm wash media into the bladder prior to ejaculation may preserve the viability of the sperm. This article provides a step-by-step guide to diagnose RE and the optimal techniques to retrieve sperm.

Relevance of Leukocytospermia and Semen Culture and Its True Place in Diagnosing and Treating Male Infertility.

The current WHO 2010 manual for human semen analysis defines leukocytospermia as the presence of peroxidase-positive leukocytes at a concentration >1×106/mL of semen. Granular leukocytes when activated are capable of generating high levels of reactive oxygen species in semen resulting in oxidative stress. Oxidative stress has been correlated with poor sperm quality, increased level of sperm DNA fragmentation and low fertility potential. The presence of leukocytes and pathogens in the semen may be a sign of infection and/or localized inflammatory response in the male genital tract and the accessory glands. Common uro-pathogens including Chlamydia trachomatis, Ureaplasma urealyticum, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Mycoplasma hominis, and Escherichia coli can cause epididymitis, epididymo-orchitis, or prostatitis. The relationship between leukocytospermia and infection is unclear. Therefore, we describe the pathogens responsible for male genital tract infections and their association with leukocytospermia. The review also examines the diagnostic tests available to identify seminal leukocytes. The role of leukocytospermia in male infertility and its management is also discussed.

Sperm Morphology Assessment in the Era of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection: Reliable Results Require Focus on Standardization, Quality Control, and Training.

Semen analysis is the first, and frequently, the only step in the evaluation of male fertility. Although the laboratory procedures are conducted according to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, semen analysis and especially sperm morphology assessment is very difficult to standardize and obtain reproducible results. This is mainly due to the highly subjective nature of their evaluation. ICSI is the choice of treatment when sperm morphology is severely abnormal (teratozoospermic). Hence, the standardization of laboratory protocols for sperm morphology evaluation represents a fundamental step to ensure reliable, accurate and consistent laboratory results that avoid misdiagnoses and inadequate treatment of the infertile patient. This article aims to promote standardized laboratory procedures for an accurate evaluation of sperm morphology, including the establishment of quality control and quality assurance policies. Additionally, the clinical importance of sperm morphology results in assisted reproductive outcomes is discussed, along with the clinical management of teratozoospermic patients.

A Global Survey of Reproductive Specialists to Determine the Clinical Utility of Oxidative Stress Testing and Antioxidant Use in Male Infertility.

PURPOSE: The use of antioxidants is common practice in the management of infertile patients. However, there are no established guidelines by professional societies on antioxidant use for male infertility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using an online survey, this study aimed to evaluate the practice pattern of reproductive specialists to determine the clinical utility of oxidative stress (OS) testing and antioxidant prescriptions to treat male infertility. RESULTS: Responses from 1,327 participants representing 6 continents, showed the largest participant representation being from Asia (46.8%). The majority of participants were attending physicians (59.6%), with 61.3% having more than 10 years of experience in the field of male infertility. Approximately two-thirds of clinicians (65.7%) participated in this survey did not order any diagnostic tests for OS. Sperm DNA fragmentation was the most common infertility test beyond a semen analysis that was prescribed to study oxidative stress-related dysfunctions (53.4%). OS was mainly tested in the presence of lifestyle risk factors (24.6%) or sperm abnormalities (16.3%). Interestingly, antioxidants were prescribed by 85.6% of clinicians, for a duration of 3 (43.7%) or 3-6 months (38.6%). A large variety of antioxidants and dietary supplements were prescribed, and scientific evidence were mostly considered to be modest to support their clinical use. Results were not influenced by the physician's age, geographic origin, experience or training in male infertility. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the largest online survey performed to date on this topic and demonstrates 1) a worldwide understanding of the importance of this therapeutic option, and 2) a widely prevalent use of antioxidants to treat male infertility. Finally, the necessity of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines from professional societies is highlighted.

SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and repercussions for male infertility patients: A proposal for the individualized provision of andrological services.

The prolonged lockdown of health facilities providing non-urgent gamete cryopreservation-as currently recommended by many reproductive medicine entities and regulatory authorities due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic will be detrimental for subgroups of male infertility patients. We believe the existing recommendations should be promptly modified and propose that the same permissive approach for sperm banking granted for men with cancer is expanded to other groups of vulnerable patients. These groups include infertility patients (eg, azoospermic and cryptozoospermic) undergoing medical or surgical treatment to improve sperm quantity and quality, as well as males of reproductive age affected by inflammatory and systemic auto-immune diseases who are about to start treatment with gonadotoxic drugs or who are under remission. In both scenarios, the "fertility window" may be transitory; postponing diagnostic semen analysis and sperm banking in these men could compromise the prospects of biological parenthood. Moreover, we provide recommendations on how to continue the provision of andrological services in a considered manner and a safe environment. Our opinion is timely and relevant given the fact that fertility services are currently rated as of low priority in most countries.

Sperm DNA Fragmentation: A New Guideline for Clinicians.

Sperm DNA integrity is crucial for fertilization and development of healthy offspring. The spermatozoon undergoes extensive molecular remodeling of its nucleus during later phases of spermatogenesis, which imparts compaction and protects the genetic content. Testicular (defective maturation and abortive apoptosis) and post-testicular (oxidative stress) mechanisms are implicated in the etiology of sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF), which affects both natural and assisted reproduction. Several clinical and environmental factors are known to negatively impact sperm DNA integrity. An increasing number of reports emphasizes the direct relationship between sperm DNA damage and male infertility. Currently, several assays are available to assess sperm DNA damage, however, routine assessment of SDF in clinical practice is not recommended by professional organizations. This article provides an overview of SDF types, origin and comparative analysis of various SDF assays while primarily focusing on the clinical indications of SDF testing. Importantly, we report four clinical cases where SDF testing had played a significant role in improving fertility outcome. In light of these clinical case reports and recent scientific evidence, this review provides expert recommendations on SDF testing and examines the advantages and drawbacks of the clinical utility of SDF testing using Strength-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis.