Search

Objective: To assess the association between ethnicity and fertility outcomes for men in a statewide cohort., Methods: We linked data from the Utah Population Database and Subfertility Health Assisted Reproduction and Environment database, to comprise a cohort of sub-fertile men who underwent semen analysis between 1998 and 2017 in Utah. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was constructed to understand the impact of ethnicity on fertility outcomes in our cohort., Results: A total of 11,363 men were included. 1039 (9.1%) were Hispanic. 39.7% of men in the lowest socioeconomic status group were Hispanic (P <.001). When controlling for demographic and clinical factors, the number of live births was reduced for Hispanic men (hazard ratios [HR] = 0.62 [0.57-0.67], P <.001). Though fertility treatment had a positive effect (HR 1.242 [1.085-1.421], P <.001), in competing risks models, Hispanic men were less likely to use fertility treatment (HR = 0.633 [0.526-0.762], P <.001)., Conclusion: Hispanic ethnicity is significantly associated with a lower likelihood of successful fertility outcomes in Utah. Hispanic men had nearly a 40% reduced likelihood of live births when controlling for sociodemographic factors. Our results indicate that, depending on age, Hispanic men have up to approximately 14 fewer live births per 100 men per year, pointing to a significant disparity in fertility outcomes in the state of Utah. Given 15.1% of Utah's population identifies as Hispanic and 18.7% of the United States population identifies as Hispanic on the 2020 Census, a better understanding of the association of ethnicity and fertility outcomes is imperative., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Our goal was to characterize the distribution of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) in fertile and subfertile nonazoospermic men, and to determine the ability of various FSH thresholds to predict fertility status., Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1389 nonazoospermic men who presented for fertility evaluation. Men with at least 2 semen analyses and 1 FSH level were included. Men were dichotomized into fertile and subfertile groups based on total motile sperm count. FSH was evaluated within a multivariable model, and positive predictive values (PPVs) for subfertility were used to assess the clinical utility of various FSH thresholds., Results: One thousand fifteen (80%) men were classified as fertile and 274 (20%) as subfertile. Age, presence of varicocele, and testosterone levels were not statistically different between the groups. Median FSH was 4.0 vs 6.0 ( P < .001) among fertile vs subfertile men. Multiple FSH thresholds ranging from 2.9 to 9.3 performed similarly in predicting fertility status (PPV 0.49-0.59). Only FSH thresholds above the 95th percentile (12.1) had PPVs greater than 0.7. The highest PPV (0.84) was seen at an FSH of 20.8 (99th percentile)., Conclusions: While there were significant differences in FSH levels among fertile and subfertile nonazoospermic men, multiple FSH cutoffs between 2.2 and 9.3 performed poorly for prediction of fertility status as determined by total motile sperm count. It was not until the 95th percentile FSH value that a clinically useful level of predictability for subfertility was reached, indicating that FSH should not be used as a standalone test of fertility status. Nonetheless, FSH testing remains clinically useful and may be most informative in the setting of extreme values or discordant FSH and semen analysis results.

Objective: To evaluate the predictors of establishing care with a reproductive urologist (RU) among men with abnormal semen analyses (SAs) ordered by nonurologists and examine patient perceptions of abnormal SAs in the absence of RU consultation., Design: Retrospective cohort study with cross-sectional survey., Setting: Large, integrated academic healthcare system during 2002-2019., Patient(s): We identified adult men undergoing initial SAs with nonurologists who had abnormalities. Patients with index SAs during 2002-2018 were included for the analysis of RU consultation. Men tested in 2019 were recruited for cross-sectional survey., Intervention(s): Cross-sectional survey., Main Outcome Measure(s): RU consultation and accurate perception of abnormal SAs., Result(s): A total of 2,283 men had abnormal SAs ordered by nonurologists, among whom 20.5% underwent RU consultation. Mixed-effect logistic regression modeling identified oligospermia as the strongest predictor of RU care (odds ratio, 3.08; 95% confidence interval, 2.43-3.90) with a significant provider-level random intercept. We observed substantial provider-level heterogeneity among nonurologists with provider-specific rates of RU evaluation ranging from 3.7% to 35.8%. We contacted 310 men who did not undergo RU consultation with a 27.2% survey response rate. Of respondents, 6.7% reported receiving an RU referral. Among men with abnormal SAs not evaluated by RU, 22.7% appropriately perceived an abnormal SA., Conclusion(s): In men with abnormal SAs diagnosed by nonurologists, the rate of RU consultation was low and associated with substantial provider-level variation among ordering providers. Patients without RU consultation reported inaccurate perceptions of their SA. Multidisciplinary efforts are needed to ensure that subfertile men receive appropriate RU evaluation., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine prevalence of hyperprolactinemia and prolactinoma among men presenting for initial fertility evaluation., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of men presenting for initial fertility evaluation at a tertiary care, academic health system between 1999 and 2018. Men with measured prolactin levels were analyzed to determine prevalence of hyperprolactinemia and prolactinoma. We compared clinical characteristics of men with and without hyperprolactinemia. Univariable and multivariable analysis were used to determine factors associated with hyperprolactinemia. We assessed effects of hyperprolactinemia and prolactinoma on testosterone levels, semen parameters and pregnancy outcomes after treatment., Results: A total of 3101 men had serum prolactin level measured. 65 (2.1%) had hyperprolactinemia. Patients with hyperprolactinemia had lower testosterone (median 280 ng/dL vs 313 ng/dL, P = 0.038) and lower total motile sperm count (median 7.0 million vs 34.7 million, P = 0.001) compared to men without hyperprolactinemia. 43.1% of men with hyperprolactinemia had oligospermia vs 21.5% of men without hyperprolactinemia (P<0.001). Univariable analysis demonstrated that men with elevated luteinizing hormone (LH) (OR 1.077, P = 0.001) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (OR 1.032, P = 0.002) were more likely to have hyperprolactinemia. Men with oligospermia were more likely to have hyperprolactinemia (OR 2.334, P = 0.004). On multivariable analysis, neither hormone parameters nor oligospermia were associated with elevated prolactin (P>0.05). Of the 65 men with hyperprolactinemia, 11 (17%) were diagnosed with a prolactinoma, resulting in an overall prevalence of 11 in 3101 (0.35%)., Conclusion: The overall prevalence of prolactinoma in our cohort of men undergoing fertility evaluation was 35-fold higher than the prevalence in the general male population., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To determine whether health-conscious men are more likely to be concerned about infertility and self-initiate semen analysis at a laboratory/clinic or through a direct-to-consumer at-home product without a health care provider recommendation., Methods: Cross-sectional survey conducted online via ResearchMatch.org between November 2019 and January 2020. Men age 18 and older without children (n = 634) were included for analysis. Outcomes were likelihood of self-initiating a semen analysis, prevalence of infertility concern., Results: Of the 634 participants, 186 expressed concern about infertility but only 29% were likely to discuss these concerns with a health care provider. More men would self-initiate a semen analysis using an at-home product than through a traditional laboratory/clinic (14.2% vs 10.4%, P = .04). Odds of self-initiating a traditional semen analysis were higher for men concerned about low testosterone (odds ratio [OR] 2.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-4.74, P = .023) and infertility (OR 3.91, 95% CI 2.14-7.15, P <.001). Self-initiating an at-home semen analysis was associated with concern for low testosterone and infertility as well as middle age (age 40-59: OR 3.02, 95% CI 1.16-7.88, P = .024) and fitness tracker use (OR: 1.95, 95% CI 1.12-3.39, P = .018)., Conclusion: Many men were unlikely to discuss infertility concerns with a health care provider. Middle aged men and those who used fitness trackers were more likely to self-initiate fertility evaluation through at-home semen analysis. Concern about low serum testosterone was pervasive and strongly associated with concern for being infertile and self-initiating a semen analysis of any kind., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To characterize the epidemiology of male factor infertility and identify which types of providers are treating infertile men in the United States., Materials and Methods: The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey was queried between 2006 and 2016 for all ambulatory care visits. Men with a diagnosis of infertility were identified by international classification of disease coding. Comorbidities, demographic and visit information were abstracted from the patients' medical record by a combination of trained surveyors and physicians. The survey data was weighted to create nationally representative estimates, and a combination of Chi-squared and Student's t-tests were utilized to determine significance., Result(s): Among the 8.7 billion patient visits between 2006 and 2016, there were 3,422,000 male encounters with a diagnosis of male factor infertility. The most common provider type for male factor infertility encounters was urology (42.12%) followed by primary care (39.79%), gynecology (7.05%) and all other provider types (11.01%). A significant number of men seen for infertility had comorbidities such as cancer (115,000 men, 3.36%) diabetes (267,000 men, 7.81%), depression (301,000 men, 8.8%), and active tobacco use (857,000 men, 30.3%)., Conclusion: In a nationally representative sample, more than 50% of ambulatory care visits for male factor infertility were not seen by urologists. These men also had a significant number of comorbidities for a relatively young cohort, emphasizing the importance of multidisciplinary care for men with a diagnosis of infertility., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Cancer and oncologic therapies can have significant adverse effects on male reproductive potential, leaving many men permanently infertile. Fertility preservation has emerged as a key survivorship issue over the past 20 years, and numerous professional societies have published guidelines calling for fertility preservation to become a routine component of oncologic care. Most males with cancer are able to produce a semen specimen for fertility preservation, but numerous other methods of sperm procurement are available for patients who cannot provide a sufficient sample. Despite these options, fertility preservation will remain a challenge for prepubertal boys and men without sperm production. For these patients, experimental and investigational approaches offer the hope that one day they will translate to the clinical arena, offering additional pathways for successful fertility preservation care., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The robotic platform offers theoretical and practical advantages to microsurgical male infertility surgery. These include reduction or elimination of tremor, 3-dimensional visualization, and decreased need for skilled surgical assistance. This article reviews the application of robotic surgery to each of the 4 primary male infertility procedures: vasectomy reversal, varicocelectomy, testicular sperm extraction, and spermatic cord denervation. Historical perspective is presented alongside the available outcomes data, which are limited in most cases. Before the robotic approach can be widely adopted, further clinical trials are needed to compare outcomes and costs with those of other validated surgical techniques., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have nothing to disclose., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Over the past few decades, there have been numerous paradigm shifts in male reproductive surgery, resulting from a combination of technologic advancements in both the operating room and the laboratory. The operating microscope transformed the field of male reproductive surgery, enabling novel techniques and higher precision for the treatment of male-factor subfertility. The subsequent widespread adoption of microsurgical approaches was largely responsible for the emergence of a cadre of highly specialized male infertility microsurgeons. The advent and evolution of in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection was a concurrent story that further revolutionized the field. The ability to achieve fertilization and pregnancy with just a single sperm changed the ways in which male reproductive surgeons could approach a wide range of pathologies from obstructive to nonobstructive causes, culminating in the microdissection testicular sperm extraction procedure for the treatment of nonobstructive azoospermia. Here we review the recent advancements in fertility-enhancing male reproductive surgery for the treatment of four disease processes: varicocele, obstruction of the excurrent ductal system, ejaculatory duct obstruction, and nonobstructive azoospermia. While examining the great strides of the past, we look forward to exciting developments on the horizon., (Copyright © 2019 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)