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.

When microdissection testicular sperm extraction (micro-TESE) fails, a redo procedure may be the only option for patients who want a biological child. However, there are many gaps of knowledge surrounding the procedure, which need to be addressed to help clinicians and patients make informed decisions. This review explores redo micro-TESE in the context of nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA). Literature was searched using Google Scholar, Medline, and PubMed. Search terms were "NOA" AND "second microdissection testicular sperm extractions" AND "redo microdissection testicles sperm extraction" AND "repeat microdissection testicular sperm extractions" AND "failed microdissection testicular sperm extractions" AND "salvage microdissection testicular sperm extractions". Only original articles in English were included. A total of nine articles were included, consisting of four retrospective and five prospective studies. The time gap between the first and second micro-TESE varied from 6 months to 24 months. Most of the included studies reported successful surgical sperm retrieval (SSR) in the second micro-TESE in the range of 10%-21%, except in one study where it reached 42%. It has not been presented any definitive information about the use of hormonal treatment or the benefit of varicocelectomy prior to the second micro-TESE. Patients with hypospermatogenesis and Klinefelter syndrome (KS) had the highest chance of success in redo surgery. In conclusion, redo micro-TESE following a negative procedure can lead to sperm recovery in 10%-21%. Patients with hypospermatogenesis and KS have a higher chance of success. There is no enough evidence to conclude which is the best hormonal stimulation if any before a redo surgery.
Humans ; Male ; Azoospermia/surgery* ; Sperm Retrieval ; Microdissection ; Reoperation ; Treatment Failure ; Testis/surgery* ; Treatment Outcome

Purpose: Men are increasingly turning toward online direct-to-consumer (DTC) men’s health platforms to fulfill their health needs. Research surrounding these platforms is lacking and the motivations and predictors underlying this online health-seeking behavior is largely unknown. This review scopes the existing literature concerning DTC men’s health and identifies factors influencing engagement, as well as health outcomes of this platform. Materials and Methods: A structured search was performed following PRISMA guidelines. CINAHL via EBSCO, Embase, MEDLINE via Ovid, PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science were searched. Results: Peer-reviewed quantitative and qualitative studies with a focus on demographics and characteristics of those using DTC men’s health platforms, as well as studies related to patient outcomes using such platforms, were included. Ten of the 3,003 studies identified met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Four cross-sectional descriptive studies evaluated the motivations behind men’s engagement with DTC platforms. Convenience, embarrassment and health motivation were identified as predominant factors associated with DTC platform use. The review identified a lack of qualitative studies, and major limitations were noted in the quantitative studies that impacted the accuracy of findings. Six further quantitative studies explored the quality of care provided by DTC platforms. DTC platforms were found to have a varying level of adherence to established clinical guidelines, but appeared to provide satisfactory patient outcomes with low levels of patient-reported side effects and adverse events. Conclusions There is a lack of research within the DTC men’s health space given the infancy of the field. Important predictors and motivations underlying men’s choices in accessing these platforms have been noted across several studies. However, further studies need to be conducted to investigate the psychosocial underpinnings of this behavior. Studies across a wider variety of male health conditions treated by these platforms will also help to provide insights to guide patient-centered care within the DTC landscape.