Male infertility (MI) and male sexual dysfunction (MSD) can often coexist together due to various interplay factors such as psychosexual, sociocultural and relationship dynamics. The presence of each form of MSD can adversely impact male reproduction and treatment strategies will need to be individualized based on patients’ factors, local expertise, and geographical socioeconomic status. The Asia Pacific Society of Sexual Medicine (APSSM) and the Asian Society of Men’s Health and Aging (ASMHA) aim to provide a consensus statement and practical set of clinical recommendations based on current evidence to guide clinicians in the management of MI and MSD within the Asia-Pacific (AP) region. A comprehensive, narrative review of the literature was performed to identify the various forms of MSD and their association with MI. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for the following English language articles under the following terms: “low libido”, “erectile dysfunction”, “ejaculatory dysfunction”, “premature ejaculation”, “retrograde ejaculation”, “delayed ejaculation”, “anejaculation”, and “orgasmic dysfunction” between January 2001 to June 2022 with emphasis on published guidelines endorsed by various organizations. This APSSM consensus committee panel evaluated and provided evidence-based recommendations on MI and clinically relevant MSD areas using a modified Delphi method by the panel and specific emphasis on locoregional socioeconomic-cultural issues relevant to the AP region. While variations exist in treatment strategies for managing MI and MSD due to geographical expertise, locoregional resources, and sociocultural factors, the panel agreed that comprehensive fertility evaluation with a multidisciplinary management approach to each MSD domain is recommended. It is important to address individual MI issues with an emphasis on improving spermatogenesis and facilitating reproductive avenues while at the same time, managing various MSD conditions with evidence-based treatments. All therapeutic options should be discussed and implemented based on the patient’s individual needs, beliefs and preferences while incorporating locoregional expertise and available resources.

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.

Purpose: Varicocele is a common problem among infertile men. Varicocele repair (VR) is frequently performed to improve semen parameters and the chances of pregnancy. However, there is a lack of consensus about the diagnosis, indications for VR and its outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore global practice patterns on the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility. Materials and Methods: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field. Results: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/ uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available. Conclusions This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men.