Multicentric, prospective observational data show sperm capacitation predicts male fertility, and cohort comparison reveals a high prevalence of impaired capacitation in men questioning their fertility.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS: Can a previously defined relationship between sperm capacitation and the probability of a man generating pregnancy within three cycles, prospectively predict male fertility in diverse clinical settings? A second study asked, what is the prevalence of impaired sperm fertilizing ability in men questioning their fertility (MQF), and does this relate to traditional semen analysis metrics? DESIGN: In the multicentric, prospective observational study, data (n = 128; six clinics) were analysed to test a published relationship between the percentage of fertilization-competent, capacitated spermatozoa (Cap-Score) and probability of generating pregnancy (PGP) within three cycles of intrauterine insemination. Logistic regression of total pregnancy outcomes (n = 252) assessed fit. In the cohort comparison, Cap-Scores of MQF (n = 2155; 22 clinics) were compared with those of 76 fertile men. RESULTS: New outcomes (n = 128) were rank-ordered by Cap-Score and divided into quintiles (25-26 per group); chi-squared testing revealed no difference between predicted and observed pregnancies (P = 0.809). Total outcomes (n = 252; 128 new + 124 previous) were pooled and the model recalculated, yielding an improved fit (P < 0.001). Applying the Akaike information criterion found that the optimal model used Cap-Score alone. Cap-Scores were performed on 2155 men (with semen analysis data available for 1948). To compare fertilizing ability, men were binned by PGP (≤19%, 20-29%, 30-39%, 40-49%, 50-59%, ≥60%). Distributions of PGP and the corresponding Cap-Scores were significantly lower in MQF versus fertile men (P < 0.001). Notably, 64% of MQF with normal volume, concentration and motility (757/1183) had PGP of 39% or less (Cap-Scores ≤31), versus 25% of fertile men. CONCLUSIONS: Sperm capacitation prospectively predicted male fertility. Impaired capacitation affects many MQF with normal semen analysis results, informing diagnosis versus idiopathic infertility.

Sperm harvesting and cryopreservation during vasectomy reversal is not cost effective.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether sperm harvesting and cryopreservation at the time of vasectomy reversal is cost-effective. DESIGN: Model of actual costs and results at five institutions. SETTING: Multicenter study comprising five centers, including university hospitals and private practices. PATIENT(S): Men undergoing vasectomy reversal. INTERVENTION(S): We established two models for vasectomy reversal. The first model was sperm harvesting and cryopreservation at the time of vasectomy reversal. The second model was sperm harvesting at the time of IVF only if the patient remained azoospermic after vasectomy reversal. Vasectomy reversal procedures modeled included bilateral vasovasostomy and bilateral epididymovasostomy. The costs for each procedure at the five institutions were collated and median costs determined. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Median cost of procedure and calculated financial comparisons. RESULT(S): The median cost of testicular sperm extraction/cryopreservation performed at the time of bilateral vasovasostomy was $1,765 (range, $1,025-$2,800). The median cost of microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration or testicular sperm extraction with cryopreservation performed at the time of epididymovasostomy was $1,209 (range, $905-$2,488). The average of the median costs for percutaneous sperm aspiration or testicular sperm aspiration for those patients with a failed vasectomy reversal was $725 (range, $400-$1,455). CONCLUSION(S): Sperm retrieval with cryopreservation at the time of vasectomy reversal is not a cost-effective management strategy.