Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:34:00.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 14 - Surgical Management of Male Infertility

from Section 3 - Clinical Evaluation and Treatment of Male Infertility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2023

By
Jesse B. Persily ,
Sameer Thakker  and
Bobby B. Najari
Edited by
Douglas T. Carrell ,
Alexander W. Pastuszak  and
James M. Hotaling
Douglas T. Carrell
Affiliation:
Utah Center for Reproductive Medicine
Alexander W. Pastuszak
Affiliation:
University of Utah
James M. Hotaling
Affiliation:
Utah Center for Reproductive Medicine
Get access

Summary

Male-factor infertility contributes significantly to the burden of infertility. Fortunately, many causes of male-factor infertility are amenable to surgical intervention. These interventions can be grouped broadly into three categories: 1) those that improve sperm delivery, including vasovasostomy, vasoepididymostomy, and transurethral resection of the ejaculatory ducts, for obstruction of the vas deferens, epididymitis, and ejaculatory ducts, respectively; 2) those that improve testicular function and optimize spermatogenesis, namely varicocelectomy; and 3) those that enable direct retrieval of sperm from either the epididymis (microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration and percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration) or testicle (testicular sperm aspiration and testicular sperm extraction). When used in conjunction with other assisted reproductive techniques, including IVF/ICSI, these surgical procedures have vastly improved the reproductive outlook for many subgroups of infertile men who had previous been considered completely infertile.

Keywords

sperm retrievalmale infertilityobstructive azoospermiavaricocelevaricocelectomyMESAPESATESATESEmicro-TESE
Type
Chapter
Information
Men's Reproductive and Sexual Health Throughout the Lifespan
An Integrated Approach to Fertility, Sexual Function, and Vitality
 , pp. 113 - 119
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Krausz, C. Male infertility: pathogenesis and clinical diagnosis. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;25:271–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brugh, VM, 3rd, Lipshultz, LI. Male factor infertility: evaluation and management. Med Clin North Am. 2004;88:367–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ostrowski, KA, Holt, SK, Haynes, B, et al. Evaluation of vasectomy trends in the United States. Urology. 2018;118:76–79.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, ML, Lipshultz, LI. Estimating the number of vasectomies performed annually in the United States: data from the National Survey of Family Growth. J Urol. 2010;184:2068–2072.Google Scholar
Belker, AM, Thomas, AJ, Jr., Fuchs, EF, et al. Results of 1,469 microsurgical vasectomy reversals by the Vasovasostomy Study Group. J Urol. 1991;145:505–511.Google Scholar
Potts, JM, Pasqualotto, FF, Nelson, D, et al. Patient characteristics associated with vasectomy reversal. J Urol. 1999;161:1835–1839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boorjian, S, Lipkin, M, Goldstein, M. The impact of obstructive interval and sperm granuloma on outcome of vasectomy reversal. J Urol. 2004;171:304–306.Google Scholar
Fuchs, ME, Anderson, RE, Ostrowski, KA, et al. Pre-operative risk factors associated with need for vasoepididymostomy at the time of vasectomy reversal. Andrology. 2016;4:160–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silber, SJ. Microscopic vasectomy reversal. Fertil Steril. 1977;28:1191–1202.Google Scholar
Kirby, EW, Hockenberry, M, Lipshultz, LI. Vasectomy reversal: decision making and technical innovations. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:753–760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheynkin, YR, Chen, ME, Goldstein, M. Intravasal azoospermia: a surgical dilemma. BJU Int. 2000;85:1089–1092.Google Scholar
Hagan, KF, Coffey, DS. The adverse effects of sperm during vasovasostomy. J Urol. 1977;118:269–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herrel, LA, Goodman, M, Goldstein, M, et al. Outcomes of microsurgical vasovasostomy for vasectomy reversal: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Urology. 2015;85:819–825.Google Scholar
Thomas, AJ, Jr. Vasoepididymostomy. Urol Clin North Am. 1987;14:527–538.Google Scholar
Schiff, J, Chan, P, Li, PS, et al. Outcome and late failures compared in 4 techniques of microsurgical vasoepididymostomy in 153 consecutive men. J Urol. 2005;174:651–615; quiz 801.Google Scholar
Chan, PT. The evolution and refinement of vasoepididymostomy techniques. Asian J Androl. 2013;15:49–55.Google Scholar
Goldstein, M, Li, PS, Matthews, GJ. Microsurgical vasovasostomy: the microdot technique of precision suture placement. J Urol. 1998;159:188–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Namekawa, T, Imamoto, T, Kato, M, et al. Vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: review of the procedures, outcomes, and predictors of patency and pregnancy over the last decade. Reprod Med Biol. 2018;17:343–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marmar, JL. Modified vasoepididymostomy with simultaneous double needle placement, tubulotomy and tubular invagination. J Urol. 2000;163:483–486.Google Scholar
Sheynkin, YR, Li, PS, Magid, ML, et al. Comparison of absorbable and nonabsorbable sutures for microsurgical vasovasostomy in rats. Urology. 1999;53:1235–1238.Google Scholar
Matthews, GJ, Schlegel, PN, Goldstein, M. Patency following microsurgical vasoepididymostomy and vasovasostomy: temporal considerations. J Urol. 1995;154:2070–2073.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarow, JP, Espeland, MA, Lipshultz, LI. Evaluation of the azoospermic patient. J Urol. 1989;142:62–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Netto, NR, Jr., Esteves, SC, Neves, PA. Transurethral resection of partially obstructed ejaculatory ducts: seminal parameters and pregnancy outcomes according to the etiology of obstruction. J Urol. 1998;159:2048–2053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yurdakul, T, Gokce, G, Kilic, O, et al. Transurethral resection of ejaculatory ducts in the treatment of complete ejaculatory duct obstruction. Int Urol Nephrol. 2008;40:369–372.Google Scholar
Engin, G, Celtik, M, Sanli, O, et al. Comparison of transrectal ultrasonography and transrectal ultrasonography-guided seminal vesicle aspiration in the diagnosis of the ejaculatory duct obstruction. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:964–970.Google Scholar
Jarow, JP. Seminal vesicle aspiration in the management of patients with ejaculatory duct obstruction. J Urol. 1994;152:899–901.Google Scholar
Farley, S, Barnes, R. Stenosis of ejaculatory ducts treated by endoscopic resection. J Urol. 1973;109:664–666.Google Scholar
Avellino, GJ, Lipshultz, LI, Sigman, M, et al. Transurethral resection of the ejaculatory ducts: etiology of obstruction and surgical treatment options. Fertil Steril. 2019;111:427–443.Google Scholar
El-Assmy, A, El-Tholoth, H, Abouelkheir, RT, et al. Transurethral resection of ejaculatory duct in infertile men: outcome and predictors of success. Int Urol Nephrol. 2012;44:1623–1630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gorelick, JI, Goldstein, M. Loss of fertility in men with varicocele. Fertil Steril. 1993;59:613–616.Google Scholar
Damsgaard, J, Joensen, UN, Carlsen, E, et al. Varicocele is associated with impaired semen quality and reproductive hormone levels: a study of 7035 healthy young men from six European countries. Eur Urol. 2016;70:1019–1029.Google Scholar
Su, LM, Goldstein, M, Schlegel, PN. The effect of varicocelectomy on serum testosterone levels in infertile men with varicoceles. J Urol. 1995;154:1752–1755.Google Scholar
Dubin, L, Amelar, RD. Varicocelectomy as therapy in male infertility: a study of 504 cases. J Urol. 1975;113:640–641.Google Scholar
Stahl, P, Schlegel, PN. Standardization and documentation of varicocele evaluation. Curr Opin Urol. 2011;21:500–505.Google Scholar
Kohn, TP, Ohlander, SJ, Jacob, JS, et al. The effect of subclinical varicocele on pregnancy rates and semen parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Urol Rep. 2018;19:53.Google Scholar
Schlegel, PN, Goldstein, M. Alternate indications for varicocele repair: non-obstructive azoospermia, pain, androgen deficiency and progressive testicular dysfunction. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:1288–1293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chehval, MJ, Purcell, MH. Deterioration of semen parameters over time in men with untreated varicocele: evidence of progressive testicular damage. Fertil Steril. 1992;57:174–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Światłowski, Ł, Pyra, K, Kuczyńska, M, et al. Selecting patients for embolization of varicoceles based on ultrasonography. J Ultrason. 2018;18:90–95.Google Scholar
Tu, D, Glassberg, KI. Laparoscopic varicocelectomy. BJU Int. 2010;106:1094–1104.Google Scholar
Schauer, I, Madersbacher, S, Jost, R, et al. The impact of varicocelectomy on sperm parameters: a meta-analysis. J Urol. 2012;187:1540–1547.Google Scholar
Kirby, EW, Wiener, LE, Rajanahally, S, et al. Undergoing varicocele repair before assisted reproduction improves pregnancy rate and live birth rate in azoospermic and oligospermic men with a varicocele: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:1338–1343.Google Scholar
van Wely, M, Barbey, N, Meissner, A, et al. Live birth rates after MESA or TESE in men with obstructive azoospermia: is there a difference? Hum Reprod. 2015;30:761–766.Google Scholar
Esteves, SC, Miyaoka, R, Orosz, JE, et al. An update on sperm retrieval techniques for azoospermic males. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2013;68(Suppl. 1):99–110.Google Scholar
Ashraf, MC, Singh, S, Raj, D, et al. Micro-dissection testicular sperm extraction as an alternative for sperm acquisition in the most difficult cases of azoospermia: technique and preliminary results in India. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2013;6:111–123.Google Scholar
Bernie, AM, Mata, DA, Ramasamy, R, et al. Comparison of microdissection testicular sperm extraction, conventional testicular sperm extraction, and testicular sperm aspiration for nonobstructive azoospermia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1099–1103.e3.Google Scholar
Cayan, S, Shavakhabov, S, Kadioğlu, A. Treatment of palpable varicocele in infertile men: a meta-analysis to define the best technique. J Androl. 2009;30:33–40.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×