The impact of male infertility faculty on urology residency training.

The objective of this study was to determine the impact of having male infertility on urology residents' infertility training experience, surgical confidence, and In-Service-Exam Infertility/Sexual Medicine subscores. We electronically surveyed urology residents throughout the United States querying exposure to infertility faculty and fertility knowledge. Univariable and multivariable analysis was performed to determine predictors of higher In-Service Exam Infertility/Sexual Medicine sub-scores and self-rated infertility competency. Fifty-four of 72 respondents (75%) reported that male infertility comprises ≤10% of their training. Of the 63 residents who have a reproductive urologist on faculty, 66.7%, 47.6%, and 49.2% have scrubbed/observed a microsurgical varicocelectomy, vasectomy reversal and testicular sperm extraction, respectively. Residents exposed to infertility faculty are more likely to self-rate their infertility understanding as "excellent" or "good" (p = 0.04 and p = 0.02, respectively), and 14.4× more likely to feel confident performing infertility procedures, versus residents lacking faculty (p < 0.001). Residents having formal microsurgical training have better self-rated infertility understanding (p < 0.001), non-obstructive azoospermia management (p = 0.01), and competency performing infertility procedures (p < 0.001). Residents exposed to fertility faculty are more likely to feel confident performing fertility procedures after residency (p = 0.001). In conclusion, infertility comprises a minority of residency training. Most residents anticipate performing infertility procedures in practice, despite two-thirds lacking confidence performing these. Having an infertility faculty and formal microsurgical training improves residents' surgical confidence, non-obstructive azoospermia management, and global male infertility understanding. A structured educational curriculum may improve resident infertility training.

Sperm granulomas: Predictive factors and impacts on patency post vasectomy reversal.

The objective of this study was to identify factors that predict for sperm granuloma formation and the impact of sperm granuloma presence and quantity on vasectomy reversal (VR) outcomes. A cross sectional retrospective review of prospectively collected data, on the impact of granuloma on VR outcomes from a single academic center was performed. The impact of age, obstructive interval, intraoperative vasal fluid findings, anastomosis type, body mass index, tobacco use and total motile count (TMC) was determined. A total of 1550 men underwent VR between January 2000 and August 2019. Granulomas were present unilaterally in 23.3% (n = 361) and bilaterally in 14.2% (n = 220). On univariate analysis, increasing patient age negatively correlated with a larger number of granulomas (p = .011). Granuloma presence was associated with finding intact and motile sperm from the vasal stump intraoperatively (p = .001), and vasoepididymostomy anastomosis (p < .001). However, granuloma presence (and quantity) did not correlate with obstructive interval or maximum TMC. Tobacco use and body mass index (BMI) were not associated with granuloma presence. On multivariate analysis, granuloma quantity was not associated with TMC. Obstructive interval and vasovasostomy anastomosis were associated with higher TMC, while BMI was negatively associated with TMC. In conclusion, increasing age was negatively correlated with granuloma formation. Granuloma presence was associated with more favourable intraoperative fluid findings and anastomosis type, but not post-VR TMC, suggesting men with and without granulomas undergoing skilled microsurgery will have similar patency rates. Heavier men should be encouraged for weight loss prior to vasectomy reversal as increasing BMI was associated with lower TMC.

Early outcomes of lung transplantation with lung allografts from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-positive donors.

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be detected for extended periods of time with nucleic acid amplification test even after transmissibility becomes negligible. Lung allografts from COVID-19-positive donors have been used for transplantation in highly selected cases. This study aimed to clarify the early outcomes of lung transplantation with COVID-19-positive donors. METHODS: The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing database between April 2020 and June 2022 was retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: In the study period, 1297 COVID-19-positive donors were identified and the lungs were transplanted from 47 donors (3.6%). Of 47 donors, 44 donors were positive for COVID-19 NAT with nasopharyngeal swabs and the other 3 were positive with bronchoalveolar lavage. The COVID-19-positive lung donors were younger than the COVID-19-negative donors (28.4 ± 11.6 years vs 35.4 ± 13.6 years, P < .001). Recipients of the COVID-19-positive lungs (n = 47) were more likely have a greater lung allocation score (57.1 ± 22.9 vs 50.5 ± 19.7, P = .057) than recipients of COVID-19-negative lungs (n = 5501). The posttransplant length of hospital stay (39.8 ± 43.6 days vs 30.6 ± 34.5 days, P = .181), need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support at 72 hours after transplantation (2.6% [1/38] vs 10.4% [541/5184], P = .18), and 1-year overall survival rate (85.6% vs 87.1%, P = .63) were comparable between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Carefully selected lung allografts from COVID-19-positive donors had comparable early posttransplant outcomes to lung allografts from COVID-19-negative donors.

Factors Influencing the Decision for Fresh vs Cryopreserved Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction for Non-Obstructive Azoospermia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine reproductive urologists' (RU) practice patterns for microdissection testicular sperm extraction (microTESE) and factors associated with use of fresh vs frozen microTESE for non-obstructive azoospermia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We electronically surveyed Society for Study of Male Reproduction members with a 21-item questionnaire. Our primary outcomes were to determine RU preference for fresh or frozen microTESE and to understand barriers to performing microTESE. Pearson's chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to analyze categorical outcomes and candidate predictor variables. Firth logistic regression was performed to identify the predictors for preferring and performing fresh vs frozen microTESE. RESULTS: A total of 208 surveys were sent with 76 responses. Most (63.0%) primarily perform frozen microTESE for non-obstructive azoospermia, while 37.0% primarily perform fresh. However, in an ideal practice, 59.3% prefer fresh microTESE, 22.2% prefer frozen microTESE, and 18.5% had no preference. MicroTESE is performed most often (61.1%) at surgical centers not affiliated with a fertility practice. The most commonly reported barriers for both fresh and frozen microTESE are cost (42.6%), scheduling (33.3%), and andrologist unavailability (16.7%). There are no statistically significant differences between these barriers and performing fresh vs frozen microTESE. On multivariable analysis, reproductive endocrinology and infertility-based surgical center (OR 22.9; 95% CI 1.1-467.2; P = 0.04) and professional fee $2,500-$4,999 (OR 20.7; 95% CI 1.27-337.9; P = 0.03) are significant predictors of performing fresh microTESE. CONCLUSION: Frozen microTESE is performed more commonly than fresh, despite most RU preferring fresh microTESE in an ideal setting. Both fresh and frozen microTESE have a role in reproductive care. Barriers to performing fresh microTESE include cost, scheduling and andrologist availability.