Infertility affects nearly 186 million people worldwide and the male partner is the cause in about half of the cases. Meta-regression data indicate an unexplained decline in sperm concentration and total sperm count over the last four decades, with an increasing prevalence of male infertility. This suggests an urgent need to implement further basic and clinical research in Andrology. Andrology developed as a branch of urology, gynecology, endocrinology, and, dermatology. The first scientific journal devoted to andrological sciences was founded in 1969. Since then, despite great advancements, andrology has encountered several obstacles in its growth. In fact, for cultural reasons, the male partner has often been neglected in the diagnostic and therapeutic workup of the infertile couple. Furthermore, the development of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) has driven a strong impression that this biotechnology can overcome all forms of infertility, with a common belief that having a spermatozoon from a male partner (a sort of sperm donor) is all that is needed to achieve pregnancy. However, clinical practice has shown that the quality of the male gamete is important for a successful ART outcome. Furthermore, the safety of ART has been questioned because of the high prevalence of comorbidities in the offspring of ART conceptions compared to spontaneous conceptions. These issues have paved the way for more research and a greater understanding of the mechanisms of spermatogenesis and male infertility. Consequently, numerous discoveries have been made in the field of andrology, ranging from genetics to several “omics” technologies, oxidative stress and sperm DNA fragmentation, the sixth edition of the WHO manual, artificial intelligence, management of azoospermia, fertility in cancers survivors, artificial testis, 3D printing, gene engineering, stem cells therapy for spermatogenesis, and reconstructive microsurgery and seminal microbiome. Nevertheless, as many cases of male infertility remain idiopathic, further studies are required to improve the clinical management of infertile males. A multidisciplinary strategy involving both clinicians and scientists in basic, translational, and clinical research is the core principle that will allow andrology to overcome its limits and reach further goals. This state-of-the-art article aims to present a historical review of andrology, and, particularly, male infertility, from its “Middle Ages” to its “Renaissance”, a golden age of andrology.

Purpose: Despite the significant role of varicocele in the pathogenesis of male infertility, the impact of varicocele repair (VR) on conventional semen parameters remains controversial. Only a few systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) have evaluated the impact of VR on sperm concentration, total motility, and progressive motility, mostly using a before-after analytic approach. No SRMA to date has evaluated the change in conventional semen parameters after VR compared to untreated controls. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of VR on conventional semen parameters in infertile patients with clinical varicocele compared to untreated controls. Materials and Methods: A literature search was performed using Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases following the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICOS) model (Population: infertile patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: VR [any technique]; Comparison: infertile patients with clinical varicocele that were untreated; Outcome: sperm concentration, sperm total count, progressive sperm motility, total sperm motility, sperm morphology, and semen volume; Study type: randomized controlled trials and observational studies). Results: A total of 1,632 abstracts were initially assessed for eligibility. Sixteen studies were finally included with a total of 2,420 infertile men with clinical varicocele (1,424 patients treated with VR vs. 996 untreated controls). The analysis showed significantly improved post-operative semen parameters in patients compared to controls with regards to sperm concentration (standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.739; 95% CI 1.129 to 2.349; p<0.001; I2=97.6%), total sperm count (SMD 1.894; 95% CI 0.566 to 3.222; p<0.05; I2=97.8%), progressive sperm motility (SMD 3.301; 95% CI 2.164 to 4.437; p<0.01; I2=98.5%), total sperm motility (SMD 0.887; 95% CI 0.036 to 1.738; p=0.04; I2=97.3%) and normal sperm morphology (SMD 1.673; 95% CI 0.876 to 2.470; p<0.05; I2=98.5%). All the outcomes showed a high inter-study heterogeneity, but the sensitivity analysis showed that no study was sensitive enough to change these results. Publication bias was present only in the analysis of the sperm concentration and progressive motility. No significant difference was found for the semen volume (SMD 0.313; 95% CI -0.242 to 0.868; I2=89.7%). Conclusions This study provides a high level of evidence in favor of a positive effect of VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men with clinical varicocele. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first SRMA to compare changes in conventional semen parameters after VR with changes in parameters of a control group over the same period. This is in contrast to other SRMAs which have compared semen parameters before and after VR, without reference to a control group. Our findings strengthen the available evidence and have a potential to upgrade professional societies’ practice recommendations favoring VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men.

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.