Further evidence supports the clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing in male infertility workup and assisted reproductive technology

The efficacy of penoscrotal decompression for refractory ischaemic priapism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Penoscrotal decompression (PSD) has emerged as a promising surgical intervention for refractory ischaemic priapism, involving proximal corporotomies and the drainage of ischaemic blood. Initial outcomes have shown high success rates in achieving detumescence, low recurrence rates, and relatively good preservation of erectile function. This meta-analysis aims to comprehensively evaluate PSD's effectiveness across three key metrics: detumescence, prevention of recurrence, and erectile function preservation. A systematic review and meta-analysis, following PRISMA guidelines, identified 9 publications that met the inclusion criteria. They encompassed five case reports, two abstracts, and two observational cohort studies, with data on 62 patients who presented with refractory ischaemic priapism. Notably, around half (46.7%) of the patients had conventional distal shunts prior to PSD. Overall following PSD, detumescence was achieved in 89.3% (CI 95%, 0.78-0.95). Post-PSD recurrence of ischaemic priapism occurred in 12.7% (95% CI, 0.06-0.24). Erectile function was preserved in 54.8% of the patients who had follow-up (95% CI, 0.40-0.68). These findings inform us that PSD proves to be a viable and effective surgical option for refractory ischaemic priapism with a key feature being better sexual function preservation outcomes compared to shunting procedures. Given the paucity of data, further larger scale prospective studies of robust designs are still necessary to better establish PSD's role within the treatment algorithm for refractory ischaemic priapism.

Comparative analysis of tests used to assess sperm chromatin integrity and DNA fragmentation

Male infertility has a complex etiology, and many times, the cause is unknown. While routine semen analysis provides an overview of basic semen parameters, such as sperm concentration, motility, viability and morphology, a significant overlap of these parameters has been reported in fertile and infertile men. Moreover, conventional semen parameters do not reveal the cellular or molecular mechanisms of sperm dysfunctions leading to infertility. Therefore, sperm functional parameters, including sperm chromatin integrity, are evaluated to provide information on subtle sperm defects that are not routinely identified. Incomplete or defective sperm chromatin condensation increases the susceptibility of the sperm DNA to oxidative damage or other factors. To evaluate sperm chromatin integrity, different methods with varying degrees of diagnostic and prognostic capabilities are available. Among these assays, SCSA, TUNEL and SCD assays are most commonly used. While these assays rather evaluate the DNA directly for damages, the aniline blue and chromomycin A3 stains test for the quality of chromatin condensation. Thus, this review discusses and compares different methods used to evaluate sperm chromatin integrity and condensation, and their inclusion in the routine evaluation of the male infertility.

A Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis on the clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing in specific male infertility scenarios

Background

Sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is recognized as a leading cause of male infertility because it can impair the paternal genome through distinct pathophysiological mechanisms. Current evidence supports SDF as a major factor in the pathophysiology of several conditions, including varicocele, unexplained infertility, assisted reproductive technology failure, and environmental lifestyle factors, although the mechanisms involved have not been fully described yet. Measurement of the levels of DNA fragmentation in semen provides valuable information on the integrity of paternal chromatin and may guide therapeutic strategies. A recently published clinical practice guideline (CPG) highlighted how to use the information provided by SDF testing in daily practice, which triggered a series of commentaries by leading infertility experts. These commentaries contained an abundance of information and conflicting views about the clinical utility of SDF testing, which underline the complex nature of SDF.

Methods

A search of papers published in response to the CPG entitled “Clinical utility of sperm DNA fragmentation testing: practice recommendations based on clinical scenarios” was performed within the Translational Andrology and Urology (TAU) website (http://tau.amegroups.com/). The start and end dates for the search were May 2017 and August 2017, respectively. Each commentary meeting our inclusion criteria was rated as “supportive without reservation”, “supportive with reservation”, “not supportive” or “neutral”. We recorded whether articles discussed either SDF characteristics as a laboratory test method or clinical scenarios, or both. Subsequently, we extracted the particulars from each commentary and utilized the ‘Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats’ (SWOT) analysis to understand the perceived advantages and drawbacks of SDF as a specialized sperm function method in clinical practice.

Results

Fifty-eight fertility experts from six continents and twenty-two countries contributed commentaries. Overall, participants (87.9%; n=51) were supportive of the recommendations provided by the CPG on the utility of SDF testing based on clinical scenarios. The majority of participants made explicit remarks about both the clinical scenarios and SDF assays’ characteristics. Among ‘not supportive’ and ‘supportive with reservation’ participants, 75% (n=30/40) and 77.5% (n=31/40) expressed concerns related to technical limitations of SDF testing methods and clinical utility of the test in one or more clinical scenarios discussed in the CPG, respectively. The SWOT analysis revealed that the CPG provides a reasonable evidence-based proposal for integration of SDF testing in the routine daily practice. It also uncovered gaps of knowledge and threats limiting the widespread application of SDF in everyday practice, thus allowing the identification of opportunities to further refine SDF testing and its clinical utility.

Conclusions

The understanding of the role of SDF in male infertility requires an in-depth analysis of the multifactorial pathophysiological processes and the theories involved. The SWOT analysis allowed an objective evaluation of CPG on the clinical utility of SDF testing based on clinical scenarios and its accompanying commentaries written by global experts in all possible angles. Implementation of SDF testing in the clinic may not only increase the outcome of ART but more importantly improve the health of both fathers to be and resulting offspring.