Purpose: This study aimed to examine current global practices in regenerative therapy (RT) for erectile dysfunction (ED) and to establish expert recommendations for its use, addressing the current lack of solid evidence and standardized guidelines. Materials and Methods: A 39-question survey was developed by senior Global Andrology Forum (GAF) experts to comprehensively cover clinical aspects of RT. This was distributed globally via a secure online Google Form to ED specialists through the GAF website, international professional societies, and social media, the responses were analyzed and presented for frequencies as percentages. Consensus on expert recommendations for RT use was achieved using the Delphi method. Results: Out of 479 respondents from 62 countries, a third reported using RT for ED. The most popular treatment was low-intensity shock wave therapy (54.6%), followed by platelet-rich plasma (24.5%) and their combination (14.7%), with stem cell therapy being the least used (3.7%). The primary indication for RT was the refractory or adverse effects of PDE5 inhibitors, with the best effectiveness reported in middle-aged and mild-to-moderate ED patients. Respondents were confident about its overall safety, with a significant number expressing interest in RT’s future use, despite pending guidelines support. Conclusions This inaugural global survey reveals a growing use of RT in ED treatment, showcasing its diverse clinical applications and potential for future widespread adoption. However, the lack of comprehensive evidence and clear guidelines requires further research to standardize RT practices in ED treatment.

Purpose: This study aimed to examine current global practices in regenerative therapy (RT) for erectile dysfunction (ED) and to establish expert recommendations for its use, addressing the current lack of solid evidence and standardized guidelines. Materials and Methods: A 39-question survey was developed by senior Global Andrology Forum (GAF) experts to comprehensively cover clinical aspects of RT. This was distributed globally via a secure online Google Form to ED specialists through the GAF website, international professional societies, and social media, the responses were analyzed and presented for frequencies as percentages. Consensus on expert recommendations for RT use was achieved using the Delphi method. Results: Out of 479 respondents from 62 countries, a third reported using RT for ED. The most popular treatment was low-intensity shock wave therapy (54.6%), followed by platelet-rich plasma (24.5%) and their combination (14.7%), with stem cell therapy being the least used (3.7%). The primary indication for RT was the refractory or adverse effects of PDE5 inhibitors, with the best effectiveness reported in middle-aged and mild-to-moderate ED patients. Respondents were confident about its overall safety, with a significant number expressing interest in RT’s future use, despite pending guidelines support. Conclusions This inaugural global survey reveals a growing use of RT in ED treatment, showcasing its diverse clinical applications and potential for future widespread adoption. However, the lack of comprehensive evidence and clear guidelines requires further research to standardize RT practices in ED treatment.

Purpose: This study aimed to examine current global practices in regenerative therapy (RT) for erectile dysfunction (ED) and to establish expert recommendations for its use, addressing the current lack of solid evidence and standardized guidelines. Materials and Methods: A 39-question survey was developed by senior Global Andrology Forum (GAF) experts to comprehensively cover clinical aspects of RT. This was distributed globally via a secure online Google Form to ED specialists through the GAF website, international professional societies, and social media, the responses were analyzed and presented for frequencies as percentages. Consensus on expert recommendations for RT use was achieved using the Delphi method. Results: Out of 479 respondents from 62 countries, a third reported using RT for ED. The most popular treatment was low-intensity shock wave therapy (54.6%), followed by platelet-rich plasma (24.5%) and their combination (14.7%), with stem cell therapy being the least used (3.7%). The primary indication for RT was the refractory or adverse effects of PDE5 inhibitors, with the best effectiveness reported in middle-aged and mild-to-moderate ED patients. Respondents were confident about its overall safety, with a significant number expressing interest in RT’s future use, despite pending guidelines support. Conclusions This inaugural global survey reveals a growing use of RT in ED treatment, showcasing its diverse clinical applications and potential for future widespread adoption. However, the lack of comprehensive evidence and clear guidelines requires further research to standardize RT practices in ED treatment.

Purpose: This study aimed to examine current global practices in regenerative therapy (RT) for erectile dysfunction (ED) and to establish expert recommendations for its use, addressing the current lack of solid evidence and standardized guidelines. Materials and Methods: A 39-question survey was developed by senior Global Andrology Forum (GAF) experts to comprehensively cover clinical aspects of RT. This was distributed globally via a secure online Google Form to ED specialists through the GAF website, international professional societies, and social media, the responses were analyzed and presented for frequencies as percentages. Consensus on expert recommendations for RT use was achieved using the Delphi method. Results: Out of 479 respondents from 62 countries, a third reported using RT for ED. The most popular treatment was low-intensity shock wave therapy (54.6%), followed by platelet-rich plasma (24.5%) and their combination (14.7%), with stem cell therapy being the least used (3.7%). The primary indication for RT was the refractory or adverse effects of PDE5 inhibitors, with the best effectiveness reported in middle-aged and mild-to-moderate ED patients. Respondents were confident about its overall safety, with a significant number expressing interest in RT’s future use, despite pending guidelines support. Conclusions This inaugural global survey reveals a growing use of RT in ED treatment, showcasing its diverse clinical applications and potential for future widespread adoption. However, the lack of comprehensive evidence and clear guidelines requires further research to standardize RT practices in ED treatment.

Purpose: This study aimed to examine current global practices in regenerative therapy (RT) for erectile dysfunction (ED) and to establish expert recommendations for its use, addressing the current lack of solid evidence and standardized guidelines. Materials and Methods: A 39-question survey was developed by senior Global Andrology Forum (GAF) experts to comprehensively cover clinical aspects of RT. This was distributed globally via a secure online Google Form to ED specialists through the GAF website, international professional societies, and social media, the responses were analyzed and presented for frequencies as percentages. Consensus on expert recommendations for RT use was achieved using the Delphi method. Results: Out of 479 respondents from 62 countries, a third reported using RT for ED. The most popular treatment was low-intensity shock wave therapy (54.6%), followed by platelet-rich plasma (24.5%) and their combination (14.7%), with stem cell therapy being the least used (3.7%). The primary indication for RT was the refractory or adverse effects of PDE5 inhibitors, with the best effectiveness reported in middle-aged and mild-to-moderate ED patients. Respondents were confident about its overall safety, with a significant number expressing interest in RT’s future use, despite pending guidelines support. Conclusions This inaugural global survey reveals a growing use of RT in ED treatment, showcasing its diverse clinical applications and potential for future widespread adoption. However, the lack of comprehensive evidence and clear guidelines requires further research to standardize RT practices in ED treatment.

The use of fresh versus frozen spermatozoa in men with nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA) undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) has been a debated hot topic among reproductive specialists. Each approach presents distinct advantages and disadvantages, with fresh sperm typically showing superior sperm quality, while frozen sperm offers logistical flexibility and a reliable backup for repeated cycles. This review summarizes the latest advancements in sperm retrieval and cryopreservation techniques, providing practitioners with a comprehensive analysis of each option's strengths and limitations. Comparative studies indicate that, although fresh sperm often has better quality metrics, cryopreservation methods such as vitrification have significantly improved postthaw outcomes, making frozen sperm a viable choice in assisted reproductive technologies (ART). The findings show comparable rates for fertilization, implantation, clinical pregnancy, and live birth between fresh and frozen microdissection testicular sperm extraction (micro-TESE) sperm in many cases, although patient-specific factors such as timing, cost-effectiveness, and procedural convenience should guide the final decision. Ultimately, the choice of using fresh or frozen sperm should align with the individual needs and conditions of patients. This tailored approach, supported by the latest advancements, can optimize ART outcomes and provide personalized reproductive care.
Humans ; Cryopreservation/methods* ; Male ; Sperm Retrieval ; Semen Preservation/methods* ; Azoospermia/therapy* ; Pregnancy ; Female ; Fertilization in Vitro ; Spermatozoa ; Microdissection ; Pregnancy Rate

Objective: The varicocoele exist in approximately 35-40% of primary male factor infertility while two to 10 percent of cases presents with pain.1 Most surgeons favor subinguinal microscopic varicocoelectomy because it offers superior improvement in semen parameters and reproductive outcome with the least complication rate. This study aimed to show an innovative surgical technique in the management of men with varicoceles. Methods: Subinguinal varicocelectomies were performed by a single surgeon on all patients starting with a standard cystoscope stabilized by a customized mechanical holding system attached to the operating bed. All the presumed vascular channels, vas deferens and lymphatics were isolated and marked with vascular loops and surgical ties. After all the presumed vessels were tagged, the standard operating microscope was brought to the operative field and full microsurgical dissection was carried out. Results: Ten varicocelectomies were performed on six men with a mean age of 30.5 years. 13 arteries, 84 veins, and 20 lymphatics were identified by the cystoscope while 18 arteries, 93 veins, and 29 lymphatics were identified by the standard operating microscope. Comparing the two modalities, 72%, 90%, and 69% of the arteries, veins, and lymphatics, respectively, were correctly identified by the cystoscope when compared to the latter. Conclusion Subinguinal varicocelectomy using a standard cystoscope could be offered as an alternative surgical approach in men with varicoceles as it can identify veins comparable with that of the standard operating microscope. In addition, a standard cystoscope can also identify, to some degree, lymphatics and arteries during surgical dissection. This innovative surgical technique can serve as a valuable option in the treatment of men with varicoceles.
Cystoscopes ; Veins ; Arteries

Purpose: Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) represents the persistent absence of sperm in ejaculate without obstruction, stemming from diverse disease processes. This survey explores global practices in NOA diagnosis, comparing them with guidelines and offering expert recommendations. Materials and Methods: A 56-item questionnaire survey on NOA diagnosis and management was conducted globally from July to September 2022. This paper focuses on part 1, evaluating NOA diagnosis. Data from 367 participants across 49 countries were analyzed descriptively, with a Delphi process used for expert recommendations. Results: Of 336 eligible responses, most participants were experienced attending physicians (70.93%). To diagnose azoospermia definitively, 81.7% requested two semen samples. Commonly ordered hormone tests included serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (97.0%), total testosterone (92.9%), and luteinizing hormone (86.9%). Genetic testing was requested by 66.6%, with karyotype analysis (86.2%) and Y chromosome microdeletions (88.3%) prevalent. Diagnostic testicular biopsy, distinguishing obstructive azoospermia (OA) from NOA, was not performed by 45.1%, while 34.6% did it selectively. Differentiation relied on physical examination (76.1%), serum hormone profiles (69.6%), and semen tests (68.1%). Expectations of finding sperm surgically were higher in men with normal FSH, larger testes, and a history of sperm in ejaculate. Conclusions This expert survey, encompassing 367 participants from 49 countries, unveils congruence with recommended guidelines in NOA diagnosis. However, noteworthy disparities in practices suggest a need for evidence-based, international consensus guidelines to standardize NOA evaluation, addressing existing gaps in professional recommendations.

Purpose: Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) represents the persistent absence of sperm in ejaculate without obstruction, stemming from diverse disease processes. This survey explores global practices in NOA diagnosis, comparing them with guidelines and offering expert recommendations. Materials and Methods: A 56-item questionnaire survey on NOA diagnosis and management was conducted globally from July to September 2022. This paper focuses on part 1, evaluating NOA diagnosis. Data from 367 participants across 49 countries were analyzed descriptively, with a Delphi process used for expert recommendations. Results: Of 336 eligible responses, most participants were experienced attending physicians (70.93%). To diagnose azoospermia definitively, 81.7% requested two semen samples. Commonly ordered hormone tests included serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (97.0%), total testosterone (92.9%), and luteinizing hormone (86.9%). Genetic testing was requested by 66.6%, with karyotype analysis (86.2%) and Y chromosome microdeletions (88.3%) prevalent. Diagnostic testicular biopsy, distinguishing obstructive azoospermia (OA) from NOA, was not performed by 45.1%, while 34.6% did it selectively. Differentiation relied on physical examination (76.1%), serum hormone profiles (69.6%), and semen tests (68.1%). Expectations of finding sperm surgically were higher in men with normal FSH, larger testes, and a history of sperm in ejaculate. Conclusions This expert survey, encompassing 367 participants from 49 countries, unveils congruence with recommended guidelines in NOA diagnosis. However, noteworthy disparities in practices suggest a need for evidence-based, international consensus guidelines to standardize NOA evaluation, addressing existing gaps in professional recommendations.

Purpose: Non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) represents the persistent absence of sperm in ejaculate without obstruction, stemming from diverse disease processes. This survey explores global practices in NOA diagnosis, comparing them with guidelines and offering expert recommendations. Materials and Methods: A 56-item questionnaire survey on NOA diagnosis and management was conducted globally from July to September 2022. This paper focuses on part 1, evaluating NOA diagnosis. Data from 367 participants across 49 countries were analyzed descriptively, with a Delphi process used for expert recommendations. Results: Of 336 eligible responses, most participants were experienced attending physicians (70.93%). To diagnose azoospermia definitively, 81.7% requested two semen samples. Commonly ordered hormone tests included serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (97.0%), total testosterone (92.9%), and luteinizing hormone (86.9%). Genetic testing was requested by 66.6%, with karyotype analysis (86.2%) and Y chromosome microdeletions (88.3%) prevalent. Diagnostic testicular biopsy, distinguishing obstructive azoospermia (OA) from NOA, was not performed by 45.1%, while 34.6% did it selectively. Differentiation relied on physical examination (76.1%), serum hormone profiles (69.6%), and semen tests (68.1%). Expectations of finding sperm surgically were higher in men with normal FSH, larger testes, and a history of sperm in ejaculate. Conclusions This expert survey, encompassing 367 participants from 49 countries, unveils congruence with recommended guidelines in NOA diagnosis. However, noteworthy disparities in practices suggest a need for evidence-based, international consensus guidelines to standardize NOA evaluation, addressing existing gaps in professional recommendations.