O-015 Results of urological consultation in the setting of IVF clinic

Abstract

Abstract Study question In the management of male infertility, we investigated whether urological consultation could improve the live birth rate, and who should visit urologists in the setting of IVF clinic. Summary answer Urologic consultation resulted in improvement of semen quality and live birth rate with more IVF use in those with adverse semen parameters. What is known already Male factor infertility exists in about a half of infertility couples. This accounts for about 8% in male reproductive age. Therefore, ideally every male partner of infertility couples attempting conception should have a urological evaluation. However, it is not very easy to access urologists who specialized in reproductive medicine in Japan because we have very few of such urologists. One the other hand, a certain number of couples are wasting their time during IVF failure without urological evaluation. Study design, size, duration This is a single-institution retrospective study. We enrolled male partners of infertility couples who visited Kameda IVF clinic Makuhari, Chiba, Japan, between May 2016 and December 2020 and followed at least one year. Live birth rate and the frequency of IVF use were investigated according to semen quality and urological consultation status. Chi-square tests and T tests were used to compare the results between groups. Participants/materials, setting, methods Among 2225 couples who visited Kameda IVF clinic Makuhari, 803 male partners (Group A, 36.0%) were evaluated by urologists who were specialized in male reproductive medicine. Remaining 1422 patients did not (Group B, 64.0%). Lifestyle evaluation, physical examination, semen analyses, scrotal ultrasonography, blood test including sexual hormones and zinc concentration were performed in Group A. Semen analyses and lifestyle evaluation were performed in Group B. Urological treatments were done according to factors of male infertility. Main results and the role of chance Semen quality was worse in Group A as compared to Group B (sperm motility, 28.5±16.9% vs. 46.0±17.0%; total sperm count, 105±108 million/mL vs. 176±155; total motile sperm count, 34±49 vs.87±98; mean±S.D.; p = 0.0001, 0.0001, 0.0001, A vs. B, respectively). After urologic consultation and managements, sperm motility was improved to 34±18% (p = 0.001). Live birth rate in groups A and B were similar (56.0% vs. 57.2%), however couples who obtained a child in Group A used IVF more often than those in Group B (70% vs. 49.9%, p < 0.001). Among those with adverse semen quality (total motile sperm count less than 15.6 million/mL, n = 472), 350 visited urologists (Group 1, 74.2%) and remaining 122 did not (Group 2, 25.8%). Live birth rate in Group 1 was significantly better than in Group 2 (65.3% vs. 54.1%, p = 0.0359). Use of IVF was significantly more frequent in Group 1 than Group 2 (79.3% vs. 63.6%, p = 0.0359) among who obtained a child. In those with better semen quality (motile sperm count >50 million, n = 900), 119 visited urologist (31.1%, Group 3) and 781 did not (Group 4). Live birth rate and the use of IVF were not different between Groups 3 and 4 (51.1% vs.60.9%; 50.4% vs. 62.9%). Limitations, reasons for caution This study is a single-institution, retrospective study in the setting of IVF clinic. There may be a selection bias since men first visit gynecologists. These could affect the study results. Wider implications of the findings In the setting of IVF clinic, urologic consultation resulted in improved semen quality and better live birth rate with the use of IVF, especially in those who have adverse semen parameters. The results of this study encourage patients to see urologists and physicians to introduce urologist to patients. Trial registration number not applicable