Faculty Bibliography

Introduction:The COVID-19 pandemic has fueled widespread incorporation of telehealth into urology practices. Vasectomy consultation via telehealth is convenient and improves access to care for male contraception. However, it does not allow for physical examination, inherently leading to possible day-of-procedure cancellations due to unforeseen anatomic concerns. This study aimed to compare vasectomy completion rates between patients undergoing virtual vs in-person consultation.Methods:All patients seen by a single provider at NYU Langone Health for vasectomy consultation between October 2016 and June 2022 were included in the study. Most patients seen before March 2020 had in-person consultations, whereas the majority of patients seen afterwards had virtual consultations without option for in-person visit due to the emergence of COVID-19. All patients seen virtually were examined in a consult room prior to being prepped for the vasectomy in the procedure room. Visit type, demographic information, and clinical outcomes data were collected for all patients. A chi-square test was used to compare the rate of vasectomy completion between those with in-person and virtual consultation. Analysis was performed using R, version 4.0.5.Results:Four hundred ninety-one patients were seen by a single provider for vasectomy consultation between October 2016 and June 2022. One hundred ninety-seven (40.1%) consultations were performed virtually and 294 (59.9%) consultations were performed in person. Three hundred seventy (75.4%) of all patients seen for consultation (both virtual and in person) ultimately underwent vasectomy. There was no evidence of difference in rate of completing vasectomy after virtual (75.6%) and in-person (75.2%) consultation (P =.91). Two of the 197 (1%) patients who consulted virtually had their vasectomy procedures cancelled on the day of the procedure based on their preoperative exam; one because of abnormal epididymal sensitivity after prior scrotal infection, the other because of a history of orchiopexy that the patient was not aware of until the surgeon started inquiring about scrotal scars present.Conclusions:Despite the lack of physical examination, virtual vasectomy consultation is both feasible and effective, with rates of vasectomy completion comparable to traditional in-person consultation.

Varicoceles are an abnormal dilation of the pampiniform plexus within the spermatic cord that can impair spermatogenesis and testosterone production in the testes through a variety of theorized mechanisms. Nearly 15% of the male population is affected by varicocele, though most men are entirely asymptomatic. Among men presenting with infertility, the incidence of varicocele has been observed to be as high as 35-40%. Varicoceles are the most commonly identified abnormalities in men presenting with infertility, and, when associated with abnormal semen parameters, present the urologist with an opportunity for intervention. Serum testosterone levels have been demonstrated to be lower on average among patients with varicoceles and data have suggested that varicocelectomy improves mean serum testosterone levels postrepair. Nonetheless, there are no current guideline indications for varicocelectomy for men with symptomatic hypogonadism, and it is not yet known whether the reported improvement in serum testosterone with surgical intervention is clinically meaningful. In this review, we discuss the most up-to-date literature on the mechanisms by which varicoceles are purported to impair both spermatogenesis and testosterone production as well as the effect of varicocelectomy on serum testosterone levels.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To determine whether sociodemographic differences exist among female patients accessing fertility services post-cancer diagnosis in a representative sample of the United States population. METHODS:All women ages 15-45 with a history of cancer who responded to the National Survey for Family Growth (NSFG) from 2011 to 2017 were included. The population was then stratified into 2 groups, defined as those who did and did not seek infertility services. The demographic characteristics of age, legal marital status, education, race, religion, insurance status, access to healthcare, and self-perceived health were compared between the two groups. The primary outcome measure was the utilization of fertility services. The complex sample analysis using the provided sample weights required by the NSFG survey design was used. RESULTS:Five hundred forty-five women reported a history of cancer and were included in this study. Forty-three (7.89%) pursued fertility services after their cancer diagnosis. Using the NSFG sample weights, this equates to a population of 161,500.7 female cancer survivors in the USA who did utilize fertility services and 1,811,955.3 women who did not. Using multivariable analysis, household income, marital status, and race were significantly associated with women utilizing fertility services following a cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS:In this nationally representative cohort of reproductive age women diagnosed with cancer, there are marital, socioeconomic, and racial differences between those who utilized fertility services and those who did not. This difference did not appear to be due to insurance coverage, access to healthcare, or perceived health status.

OBJECTIVE:To characterize the general health status of infertile men in the United States using a nationally representative sample of men. METHODS:Using the National Survey for Family Growth from 2011 to 2017, infertile subgroups were created using a range of inclusion criteria. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted comparing these men to fertile men. RESULTS:Using population estimates, 6.5 million men with reduced fertility potential were compared to 26 million fertile men. After controlling for demographic and healthcare utilization factors, these groups did not have significantly different rates of key medical co-morbidities, including cancer, obesity, and overall disability. Looking at the subset of men who had received a specific infertility diagnosis, estimated as a population of nearly 600,000 men, this pattern held, in that there were no significant differences in the rates of medical co-morbidities. Notably, the rate of male infertility evaluation among potentially infertile men was only 50%. These findings also persisted after a propensity-matched analysis. CONCLUSIONS:In this cohort, there was no significant relationship between infertility and specific medical co-morbidities. We must consider the influence of sample selection as we continue to investigate the relationship between medical co-morbidities and reduced fertility potential. Given the persistent low rates of infertility evaluation, even among men who seek medical advice to conceive, we must continue to search for ways to characterize the infertile male population while simultaneously working to improve access.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To characterize the demographic differences between infertile/sub-fertile women who utilized infertility services vs. those that do not. METHODS:A retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data obtained during the 2011-2013, 2013-2015, and 2015-2017 cycles of National Survey for Family Growth from interviews administered in home for randomly selected participants by a National Center of Health Statistics (NCHS) surveyor was used to analyze married, divorced, or women with long-term partners who reported difficulty having biological children (sub-fertile/infertile women). Demographic differences such as formal marital status, education, race, and religion were compared between women who presented for infertility care vs. those that did not. The primary outcome measure was presenting for infertility evaluation and subsequently utilizing infertility services. Healthcare utilization trends such as having a usual place of care and insurance status were also included as exposures of interest in the analysis. RESULTS:Of the 12,456 women included in the analysis 1770 (15.3%) had used infertility services and 1011 (8.3%) said it would be difficult for them to have a child but had not accessed infertility services. On univariate analysis, compared to women who used infertility services, untreated women had lower average household incomes (295.3 vs. 229.8% of the federal poverty line respectively). Untreated women also had lower levels of education and were more likely to be divorced or never have married. In terms of health status, unevaluated women were less likely to have a usual place for healthcare (87.3%) as compared to women presenting for fertility care (91.9%) (p = 0.004). When examining insurance status, 23.3% of unevaluated women were uninsured as compared to 8.3% of evaluated women. On multivariate analysis, infertile women without insurance were at 0.37 odds of utilizing infertility care compared to women with insurance. CONCLUSIONS:Demographic factors are associated with the utilization of infertility care. Insurance status is a significant predictor of whether or not infertile women will access treatment. Data from the three most recent NSFG surveys along with prior analyses demonstrate the need for expanded insurance coverage in order to address the socioeconomic disparities between infertile women who are accessing services vs. those that are not.

Obstructive azoospermia (OA) is a rare cause of male infertility, with Congenital Bilateral Absence of The Vas Deferens (CBAVD) being a major cause. A wealth of literature has established an irrefutable link between CFTR mutations and CBAVD, with CBAVD affecting almost all men with cystic fibrosis (CF) disease and a significant portion of men that are CFTR mutation carriers. In the past two decades, assisted reproductive technologies have made the prospect of fathering children a viable possibility in this subset of men, using a combination of sperm extraction techniques and intracystoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). In order to assess techniques for sperm retrieval, as well as reproductive outcomes, a systemic search of the MEDLINE database was conducted for all articles pertaining to management options for CBAVD, and also all reports describing outcomes of these procedures in the CBAVD population. Both epididymal and testicular sperm extraction (TESE) are viable options for men with CBAVD, and though rigorous data are lacking, live birth rates range from 8% to 50% in most small retrospective series and subset analyses. In addition, there does not appear to be significant differences in the rate of live birth or complications and miscarriages between the various techniques, though further investigation into other factors that limit reproductive potential of men with CFTR mutations and CBAVD is warranted.