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

Purpose: There are no published examples of a global online research collaborative in andrology. We describe the development, profile and member characteristics of the first consortium of this type, the Global Andrology Forum (GAF). Materials and Methods: An online survey sent to all GAF members collected demographic information (sex, age, experience, academic title, degrees, country, specialty, profession). It also tapped data on members’ characteristics e.g., skills in research, software and statistics; preferred activities; time commitments; expected roles; and interest in participating in research, in GAF’s scientific activities and collaborative online research. The findings were analyzed and tabulated. We outline members’ demographic and professional characteristics and scientific achievements to date. A narrative approach outlined GAF’s structure and functioning. Results: A total of 418 out of 540 members completed the survey and were included in the analysis (77.4% response rate). The sample comprised mainly urologists (34.2%) and a third of the respondents had practiced for >15 years (33.3%). Up to 86.1% of the members expressed interest in being actively engaged in writing scientific articles. A third of the sample (37.1%) could dedicate 4 to 6 hours/week. Few respondents reported skills in statistics and artwork (2.6% and 1.9% respectively). Members were assigned to specific roles based on their expertise and experiences. Collaborative working ensured the timely completion of projects while maintaining quality. For outcomes, GAF published 29 original articles within one year of its creation, with authors from 48 countries spanning topics that included varicocele, sperm DNA damage, oxidative stress, semen analysis and male infertility, oocyte/embryo, and laboratory issues of assisted reproductive technique (ART) and male infertility evaluation. Conclusions GAF is a successful global online andrology research model. A healthy number of scientific articles have been published. Given such effectiveness, adopting the GAF model could be useful for other disciplines that wish to create and coordinate successful international online research groups.

Purpose: This is the first study to design and assess a research capacity building (RCB) specifically tailored for clinical and non-clinical andrology practitioners worldwide. We appraised: 1) the barriers and enablers to research among these practitioners; 2) attendees’ satisfaction with the webinar; and 3) research knowledge acquisition as a result of the webinar (before/after quiz). Materials and Methods: A online RCB webinar was designed, comprising two presentations in research design and systematic review/meta-analysis (SR/MA). An online survey using validated published questionnaires assessed the three above-stated objectives. Paired t-test compared the means of the pre- and post-webinar scores. Subgroup analysis was performed on the participants’ professional background, sex, and number of years in practice. Results: A total of 237 participants attended the webinar, of which 184 completed the survey and are included in the current analysis. Male participants were about double the females and 60.9% were from Asian countries. The most common research enablers were to publish scientific papers (14.8%) and to develop research (14.7%) or new skills (12.7%). The most common barriers were the lack of training in research (12.4%), training in research software (11.8%), and time for research (11.8%). Satisfaction with the webinar was considerably high (86.3%–88.4%) for the different features of the webinar. Compared to the pre-webinar knowledge level, there were significant improvements in participants’ research knowledge acquisition after the webinar in terms of the total score for the quiz (13.7±4.31 vs. 21.5±4.7), as well as the scores for the study design (7.12±2.37 vs. 11.5±2.69) and SR/MA sessions (6.63±2.63 vs. 9.93±2.49) (p<0.001 for each). Conclusions Clinical and non-clinical andrology webinar attendees recognized the importance of research and exhibited a range of research skills, knowledge and experience. There were significant improvements in the participants’ knowledge and understanding of the components of scientific research. We propose an RCB model that can be implemented and further modeled by organizations with similar academic research goals.