Despite advances in the field of male reproductive health, idiopathic male infertility, in which a man has altered semen characteristics without an identifiable cause and there is no female factor infertility, remains a challenging condition to diagnose and manage. Increasing evidence suggests that oxidative stress (OS) plays an independent role in the etiology of male infertility, with 30% to 80% of infertile men having elevated seminal reactive oxygen species levels. OS can negatively affect fertility via a number of pathways, including interference with capacitation and possible damage to sperm membrane and DNA, which may impair the sperm's potential to fertilize an egg and develop into a healthy embryo. Adequate evaluation of male reproductive potential should therefore include an assessment of sperm OS. We propose the term Male Oxidative Stress Infertility, or MOSI, as a novel descriptor for infertile men with abnormal semen characteristics and OS, including many patients who were previously classified as having idiopathic male infertility. Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) can be a useful clinical biomarker for the classification of MOSI, as it takes into account the levels of both oxidants and reductants (antioxidants). Current treatment protocols for OS, including the use of antioxidants, are not evidence-based and have the potential for complications and increased healthcare-related expenditures. Utilizing an easy, reproducible, and cost-effective test to measure ORP may provide a more targeted, reliable approach for administering antioxidant therapy while minimizing the risk of antioxidant overdose. With the increasing awareness and understanding of MOSI as a distinct male infertility diagnosis, future research endeavors can facilitate the development of evidence-based treatments that target its underlying cause.

Approximately 1% of all men in the general population suffer from azoospermia, and azoospermic men constitute approximately 10 to 15% of all infertile men. Thus, this group of patients represents a significant population in the field of male infertility. A thorough medical history, physical examination and hormonal profile are essential in the evaluation of azoospermic males. Imaging studies, a genetic workup and a testicular biopsy (with cryopreservation) may augment the workup and evaluation. Men with nonobstructive azoospermia should be offered genetic counseling before their spermatozoa are used for assisted reproductive techniques. This article provides a contemporary review of the evaluation of the azoospermic male.

In men with chronic orchialgia there appears to be wallerian degeneration in reproducible patterns in the spermatic cord nerve fibers. Transection of these nerves may explain the effect of the denervation procedure.

The prolonged lockdown of health facilities providing non‐urgent gamete cryopreservation—as currently recommended by many reproductive medicine entities and regulatory authorities due to the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic will be detrimental for subgroups of male infertility patients. We believe the existing recommendations should be promptly modified and propose that the same permissive approach for sperm banking granted for men with cancer is expanded to other groups of vulnerable patients. These groups include infertility patients (eg, azoospermic and cryptozoospermic) undergoing medical or surgical treatment to improve sperm quantity and quality, as well as males of reproductive age affected by inflammatory and systemic auto‐immune diseases who are about to start treatment with gonadotoxic drugs or who are under remission. In both scenarios, the “fertility window” may be transitory; postponing diagnostic semen analysis and sperm banking in these men could compromise the prospects of biological parenthood. Moreover, we provide recommendations on how to continue the provision of andrological services in a considered manner and a safe environment. Our opinion is timely and relevant given the fact that fertility services are currently rated as of low priority in most countries.

The introduction of the operative microscope for andrological surgery in the 1970s provided enhanced magnification and accuracy, unparalleled to any previous visual loop or magnification techniques. This technology revolutionized techniques for microsurgery in andrology. Today, we may be on the verge of a second such revolution by the incorporation of robotic assisted platforms for microsurgery in andrology. Robotic assisted microsurgery is being utilized to a greater degree in andrology and a number of other microsurgical fields, such as ophthalmology, hand surgery, plastics and reconstructive surgery. The potential advantages of robotic assisted platforms include elimination of tremor, improved stability, surgeon ergonomics, scalability of motion, multi-input visual interphases with up to three simultaneous visual views, enhanced magnification, and the ability to manipulate three surgical instruments and cameras simultaneously. This review paper begins with the historical development of robotic microsurgery. It then provides an in-depth presentation of the technique and outcomes of common robotic microsurgical andrological procedures, such as vasectomy reversal, subinguinal varicocelectomy, targeted spermatic cord denervation (for chronic orchialgia) and robotic assisted microsurgical testicular sperm extraction (microTESE).

Microsurgical vasectomy reversal is a technically demanding procedure. Previous studies have shown the possible benefit of robotic assistance during such procedures. Our goal was to compare robotic assisted vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy to standard microsurgical vasovasostomy (MVV) and vasoepididymostomy (MVE). The use of robotic assistance for vasectomy reversal may provide the microsurgeon with improved visualization, elimination of tremor, and decreased fatigue and obviate the need for a skilled microsurgical assistant. This study provides the first clinical prospective control trial of robotic assisted versus pure microsurgical vasectomy reversal. The use of robotic assistance in microsurgical vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy may have benefit over MVV and MVE with regards to decreasing operative duration and improving the rate of recovery of postoperative total motile sperm counts based on our study.

The management of patients suffering with chronic testicular and groin pain is very challenging. With increased awareness of men's health, more patients and clinicians are open to talk about this complex problem that affects over 100,000 men/year. The pathogenesis of chronic orchialgia is still not clear, but there are several postulated theories. Treatment options include conservative medical therapy with NSAIDs, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and narcotics. Surgical options such as targeted microsurgical denervation and microcryoablation can provide permanent durable pain relief. The goal of this article is to review and discuss the management of patients with chronic orchialgia using currently available literature.

Purpose The use of antioxidants is common practice in the management of infertile patients. However, there are no established guidelines by professional societies on antioxidant use for male infertility. Materials and Methods Using an online survey, this study aimed to evaluate the practice pattern of reproductive specialists to determine the clinical utility of oxidative stress (OS) testing and antioxidant prescriptions to treat male infertility. Results Responses from 1,327 participants representing 6 continents, showed the largest participant representation being from Asia (46.8%). The majority of participants were attending physicians (59.6%), with 61.3% having more than 10 years of experience in the field of male infertility. Approximately two-thirds of clinicians (65.7%) participated in this survey did not order any diagnostic tests for OS. Sperm DNA fragmentation was the most common infertility test beyond a semen analysis that was prescribed to study oxidative stress-related dysfunctions (53.4%). OS was mainly tested in the presence of lifestyle risk factors (24.6%) or sperm abnormalities (16.3%). Interestingly, antioxidants were prescribed by 85.6% of clinicians, for a duration of 3 (43.7%) or 3–6 months (38.6%). A large variety of antioxidants and dietary supplements were prescribed, and scientific evidence were mostly considered to be modest to support their clinical use. Results were not influenced by the physician's age, geographic origin, experience or training in male infertility. Conclusions This study is the largest online survey performed to date on this topic and demonstrates 1) a worldwide understanding of the importance of this therapeutic option, and 2) a widely prevalent use of antioxidants to treat male infertility. Finally, the necessity of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines from professional societies is highlighted.