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.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the intraobserver and interobserver reliabilities of temporomandibular joint linear measurements and condylar shape classifications performed with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). METHODS: CBCT images of 30 patients were measured at two different time points by two orthodontists using the Dolphin 3D program (n = 60). Anterior, posterior, and superior joint space measurements and sagittal joint morphology classification in the sagittal view and medial and lateral joint space and mediolateral width measurements and coronal joint morphology classification in the coronal view were recorded. Intraclass-interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and kappa statistics were used to assess intraobserver and interobserver reliability for the measurements and morphology classifications, respectively. RESULTS: The ICC values were good for measurements of the posterior joint space by observer I and for measurements of the posterior, medial, and lateral joint spaces by observer II, while the other intraobserver measurements were excellent. Only the mediolateral width measurements showed excellent interobserver ICC values, while the other measurements showed good interobserver ICC values. Intraobserver agreement for the sagittal morphology classifications was moderate (κ = 0.479) and almost perfect (κ = 0.858) for observers I and II, respectively, while the corresponding agreement for the coronal morphology classifications was substantial for both observers. The interobserver agreement values for sagittal and coronal morphology classifications were slight (κ = 0.181) and fair (κ = 0.265), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Linear temporomandibular joint measurements were reproducible and reliable in both intraobserver and interobserver evaluations. However, interobserver agreement for assessments of condylar shape was low.