Male infertility is directly or indirectly responsible for 60% of cases involving reproductive-age couples with fertility-related issues. Nevertheless, the evaluation of male infertility is often underestimated or postponed. A coordinated evaluation of the infertile male using standardized procedures improves both diagnostic precision and the results of subsequent management in terms of effectiveness, risk and costs. Recent advances in assisted reproductive techniques (ART) have made it possible to identify and overcome previously untreatable causes of male infertility. To properly utilize the available techniques and improve clinical results, it is of the utmost importance that patients are adequately diagnosed and evaluated. Ideally, this initial assessment should also be affordable and accessible. We describe the main aspects of male infertility evaluation in a practical manner to provide information on the judicious use of available diagnostic tools and to better determine the etiology of the most adequate treatment for the existing condition.

Different surgical methods such as PESA, MESA, TESA, TESE and micro-TESE have been developed to retrieve spermatozoa from either the epididymis or the testis according to the type of azoospermia, i.e., obstructive or non-obstructive. Laboratory techniques are used to remove contaminants, cellular debris, and red blood cells following collection of the epididymal fluid or testicular tissue. Surgically-retrieved spermatozoa may be used for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and/or cryopreservation. In this article, we review the surgical procedures for retrieving spermatozoa from both the epididymis and the testicle and provide technical details of the commonly used methods. A critical analysis of the advantages and limitations of the current surgical methods to retrieve sperm from males with obstructive and non-obstructive azoospermia is presented along with an overview of the laboratory techniques routinely used to process surgically-retrieved sperm. Lastly, we summarize the results from the current literature of sperm retrieval, as well as the clinical outcome of ICSI in the clinical scenario of obstructive and nonobstructive azoospermia.

The objective of this systemic review was to evaluate the benefit of repairing clinical varicocele in infertile men with nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA). The surgically obtained sperm retrieval rate (SRR) and pregnancy rates following assisted reproductive technology (ART) with the use of retrieved testicular sperm were the primary outcomes. The secondary outcomes included the presence of viable sperm in postoperative ejaculate to avoid the testicular sperm retrieval and pregnancy rates (both assisted and unassisted) using postoperative ejaculated sperm. An electronic search to collect the data was performed using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases until April 2015. Eighteen studies were included in this systematic review and accounted for 468 patients who were diagnosed with NOA and varicocele. These patients were subjected to either surgical varicocele repair or percutaneous embolization. Three controlled studies evaluating sperm retrieval outcomes indicated that in patients who underwent varicocelectomy, SRR increased compared to those without varicocele repair (OR: 2.65; 95% CI: 1.69–4.14; P < 0.001). Although pregnancy rates with the use of testicular sperm favored the varicocelectomy group, results were not statistically significant (clinical pregnancy rate OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 0.92–4.65; P = 0.08; live birth rate OR: 2.19; 95% CI: 0.99–4.83; P = 0.05). The remaining fifteen studies reported postoperative semen analysis results. In 43.9% of the patients (range: 20.8%–55.0%), sperm were found in postoperative ejaculates. Pregnancy rates for unassisted and assisted (after IVF/ICSI) were 13.6% and 18.9% in the group of men with sperm in postoperative ejaculates, respectively. Our findings indicate that varicocelectomy in patients with NOA and clinical varicocele is associated with improved SRR. In addition, approximately 44% of the treated men will have enough sperm in the ejaculate to avoid sperm retrieval. Limited data on pregnancy outcomes with both postoperative ejaculated sperm and harvested testicular sperm preclude any firm conclusion with regard to the possible increased fertility potential in treated individuals. In conclusion, the results of our study indicate that infertile men with NOA and clinical varicocele benefit from varicocelectomy. Given the low/moderate quality of evidence available, it is advisable that doctors discuss with their patients with NOA the risks and benefits of varicocele repair.

PFMT is an effective approach to treat LUTD in female with MS.

Varicocele is a major cause of male infertility, as it may impair spermatogenesis through several distinct physiopathological mechanisms. With the recent advances in biomolecular techniques and the development of novel sperm functional tests, it has been possible to better understand the mechanisms involved in testicular damage provoked by varicocele and, therefore, propose optimized ways to prevent and/or reverse them. Up to now, there is still controversy involving the true benefit of varicocele repair in subfertile men as well as in certain specific situations such as concomitant contralateral subclinical varicocele or associated nonobstructive azoospermia. Also, with the continued development of assisted reproductive technology new issues and questions are emerging regarding the role of varicocelectomy in this context. This paper reviews the most recent data available on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of varicocele with regard to male infertility.