Purpose Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) has been associated with male infertility and poor outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The purpose of this study was to investigate global practices related to the management of elevated SDF in infertile men, summarize the relevant professional society recommendations, and provide expert recommendations for managing this condition. Materials and Methods An online global survey on clinical practices related to SDF was disseminated to reproductive clinicians, according to the CHERRIES checklist criteria. Management protocols for various conditions associated with SDF were captured and compared to the relevant recommendations in professional society guidelines and the appropriate available evidence. Expert recommendations and consensus on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF were then formulated and adapted using the Delphi method. Results A total of 436 experts from 55 different countries submitted responses. As an initial approach, 79.1% of reproductive experts recommend lifestyle modifications for infertile men with elevated SDF, and 76.9% prescribe empiric antioxidants. Regarding antioxidant duration, 39.3% recommend 4–6 months and 38.1% recommend 3 months. For men with unexplained or idiopathic infertility, and couples experiencing recurrent miscarriages associated with elevated SDF, most respondents refer to ART 6 months after failure of conservative and empiric medical management. Infertile men with clinical varicocele, normal conventional semen parameters, and elevated SDF are offered varicocele repair immediately after diagnosis by 31.4%, and after failure of antioxidants and conservative measures by 40.9%. Sperm selection techniques and testicular sperm extraction are also management options for couples undergoing ART. For most questions, heterogenous practices were demonstrated. Conclusions This paper presents the results of a large global survey on the management of infertile men with elevated SDF and reveals a lack of consensus among clinicians. Furthermore, it demonstrates the scarcity of professional society guidelines in this regard and attempts to highlight the relevant evidence. Expert recommendations are proposed to help guide clinicians.

BackgroundSperm chromatin dispersion test is a common and inexpensive technique to assess sperm DNA fragmentation, but its subjectivity in assessing a small number of spermatozoa is a disadvantage.ObjectivesTo study the efficacy of a new sperm chromatin dispersion test kit (R10) combined with an artificial intelligence‐aided halo‐evaluation platform (X12) and compare the results to those of existing sperm DNA fragmentation testing methods.Materials and methodsSemen samples from normozoospermic donors (n = 10) and infertile men with abnormal semen parameters (n = 10) were enrolled. DNA fragmentation indices were examined by multiple assays, including R10, Halosperm G2 (G2), sperm chromatin structure assay, and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase deoxynucleotidyl transferase nick end labeling. In R10 assay, the DNA fragmentation indices were obtained both manually (manual R10) and by X12 (AI‐R10). The obtained DNA fragmentation indices were analyzed by agreement analyses.ResultsThe DNA fragmentation indices obtained by manual R10 and those obtained by AI‐R10 showed a strong significant correlation (r = 0.97, p < 0.001) and agreement. The number of spermatozoa evaluated by AI‐R10 was 2078 (680–5831). The DNA fragmentation indices obtained by manual R10 and AI‐R10 both correlated with those of G2 (r = 0.90, p < 0.001; r = 0.88, p < 0.001). Between the AI‐R10 and G2 results, Passing–Bablok regression showed no systematic or proportional difference, and Bland–Altman plots revealed overall agreement and a mean bias of 6.3% with an SD of 6.9% (95% limit of agreement: −7.2% to 19.9%). AI‐R10 and sperm chromatin structure assays showed systematic differences with a mean bias of −1.9%, while AI‐R10 and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase deoxynucleotidyl transferase nick end labeling revealed proportional differences with a mean bias of −10.7%.ConclusionsThe novel sperm chromatin dispersion kit and artificial intelligence‐aided platform demonstrated significant correlation and agreement with existing sperm chromatin dispersion methods by assessing greater number of spermatozoa. This technique has the potential to provide a rapid and accurate assessment of sperm DNA fragmentation without technical expertise or flow cytometry.

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.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this meta-analysis is to study the impact of varicocele repair in the largest cohort of infertile males with clinical varicocele by including all available studies, with no language restrictions, comparing intra-person conventional semen parameters before and after the repair of varicoceles. Materials and Methods The meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA-P and MOOSE guidelines. A systematic search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Eligible studies were selected according to the PICOS model (Population: infertile male patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: varicocele repair; Comparison: intra-person before-after varicocele repair; Outcome: conventional semen parameters; Study type: randomized controlled trials [RCTs], observational and case-control studies). Results Out of 1,632 screened abstracts, 351 articles (23 RCTs, 292 observational, and 36 case-control studies) were included in the quantitative analysis. The before-and-after analysis showed significant improvements in all semen parameters after varicocele repair (except sperm vitality); semen volume: standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.203, 95% CI: 0.129–0.278; p<0.001; I 2 =83.62%, Egger’s p=0.3329; sperm concentration: SMD 1.590, 95% CI: 1.474–1.706; p<0.001; I 2 =97.86%, Egger’s p<0.0001; total sperm count: SMD 1.824, 95% CI: 1.526–2.121; p<0.001; I 2 =97.88%, Egger’s p=0.0063; total motile sperm count: SMD 1.643, 95% CI: 1.318–1.968; p<0.001; I 2 =98.65%, Egger’s p=0.0003; progressive sperm motility: SMD 1.845, 95% CI: 1.537%–2.153%; p<0.001; I 2 =98.97%, Egger’s p<0.0001; total sperm motility: SMD 1.613, 95% CI 1.467%–1.759%; p<0.001; l2=97.98%, Egger’s p<0.001; sperm morphology: SMD 1.066, 95% CI 0.992%–1.211%; p<0.001; I 2 =97.87%, Egger’s p=0.1864. Conclusions The current meta-analysis is the largest to date using paired analysis on varicocele patients. In the current meta-analysis, almost all conventional semen parameters improved significantly following varicocele repair in infertile patients with clinical varicocele.