{"paper_id":"b98d38b6-da83-4578-82fc-c6e782e6ae0f","body_text":"- Infertility in the Male\n- Infertility in the Male\n- Copyright page\n- Contents\n- Contributors\n- Foreword\n- Abbreviations\n- Introduction\n- Section 1 Scientific Foundations of Male Infertility\n- Section 2 Clinical Evaluation of the Infertile Male\n- Chapter 7 Infertility as a Metric of Men’s Health\n- Chapter 8 Office Evaluation of the Subfertile Male\n- Chapter 9 Evaluation of the Infertile Male’s Partner\n- Chapter 10 Imaging the Male Reproductive System\n- Chapter 11 Effects of Environmental Chemicals on Male Reproduction\n- Chapter 12 Endocrine Causes of Male Infertility – Diagnosis and Treatment\n- Chapter 13 Spermatogenesis – Diagnosis of Normal and Abnormal States\n- Chapter 14 Inheritance and Male Fertility\n- Chapter 15 The Varicocele – Approaches to Diagnosis and Management\n- Chapter 16 Infection, Inflammation, and Immunological Causes of Male Infertility\n- Section 3 Laboratory Diagnosis of Male Infertility\n- Section 4 Treatment of Male Infertility\n- Section 5 Health Care Systems and Culture\n- Index\n- References\nfrom Section 2 - Clinical Evaluation of the Infertile Male\nPublished online by Cambridge University Press: 08 July 2023\nBook contents\n- Infertility in the Male\n- Infertility in the Male\n- Copyright page\n- Contents\n- Contributors\n- Foreword\n- Abbreviations\n- Introduction\n- Section 1 Scientific Foundations of Male Infertility\n- Section 2 Clinical Evaluation of the Infertile Male\n- Chapter 7 Infertility as a Metric of Men’s Health\n- Chapter 8 Office Evaluation of the Subfertile Male\n- Chapter 9 Evaluation of the Infertile Male’s Partner\n- Chapter 10 Imaging the Male Reproductive System\n- Chapter 11 Effects of Environmental Chemicals on Male Reproduction\n- Chapter 12 Endocrine Causes of Male Infertility – Diagnosis and Treatment\n- Chapter 13 Spermatogenesis – Diagnosis of Normal and Abnormal States\n- Chapter 14 Inheritance and Male Fertility\n- Chapter 15 The Varicocele – Approaches to Diagnosis and Management\n- Chapter 16 Infection, Inflammation, and Immunological Causes of Male Infertility\n- Section 3 Laboratory Diagnosis of Male Infertility\n- Section 4 Treatment of Male Infertility\n- Section 5 Health Care Systems and Culture\n- Index\n- References\nInfertility is common, affecting up to 15 percent of couples [1]. One-third of infertility is attributed to a female factor, whereas 20 percent of infertility is attributed to a male factor. In up to 20–40 percent of cases, there are both a female and a male factor contributing to infertility [1, 2]. The evaluation of infertility is warranted after 12 months of unprotected intercourse in couples when the female partner is aged 35 or younger. The natural decline in fertility begins to increase more rapidly after age 35. Thus, in women aged 35 years or older, evaluation should be initiated after 6 months of unprotected intercourse. In women with known risk factors for infertility, such as irregular menstrual cycles or endometriosis, a complete evaluation should be performed sooner. Since infertility may be the result of both female and male factors, couples already diagnosed with male factor infertility should also undergo a complete workup [1]. In this chapter, we will focus on the evaluation of the female partner.\n- Type\n- Chapter\n- Information\n- Infertility in the Male , pp. 146 - 164Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023\nPfeifer, S, Butts, S, Dumesic, D, et al. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile male: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2015;103:e18–25.Google Scholar\nAmerican Society for Reproductive Medicine. FAQs about infertility. 2017. Available from: www.reproductivefacts.org/faqs/frequently-asked-questions-about-infertility/.Google Scholar\nGee, RE, Newman, J. Exposure to toxic environmental agents. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:931–5.Google Scholar\nPenzias, A, Bendikson, K, Butts, S, et al. Smoking and infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2018;110:611–18.Google Scholar\nAmerican Society for Reproductive Medicine, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Gynecologic Practice. Prepregnancy counseling. Committee opinion no. 762. Fertil Steril 2019;111:32–42.Google Scholar\nSetton, R, Tierney, C, Tsai, T. The accuracy of web sites and cellular phone applications in predicting the fertile window. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:58–63.Google Scholar\nPractice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in collaboration with the Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. Optimizing natural fertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2017;107:52–8.Google Scholar\nMiller, PB, Soules, MR. The usefulness of a urinary LH kit for ovulation prediction during menstrual cycles of normal women. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:13–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed\nPearlstone, AC, Surrey, ES. The temporal relation between the urine LH surge and sonographic evidence of ovulation: determinants and clinical significance. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:184–8.Google Scholar\nMcGovern, PG, Myers, ER, Silva, S, et al. Absence of secretory endometrium after false-positive home urine luteinizing hormone testing. Fertil Steril 2004;82:1273–7.Google Scholar\nMurray, MJ, Meyer, WR, Zaino, RJ, et al. A critical analysis of the accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical utility of histologic endometrial dating in fertile women. Fertil Steril 2004;81:1333–43.Google Scholar\nCoutifaris, C, Myers, ER, Guzick, DS, et al. Histological dating of timed endometrial biopsy tissue is not related to fertility status. Fertil Steril 2004;82:1264–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar\nAzziz, R, Carmina, E, Chen, Z, et al. Polycystic ovary syndrome. Nat Rev Dis Prim 2016;2:16057.Google Scholar\nFauser, BCJM, Tarlatzis, BC, Rebar, RW, et al. Consensus on women’s health aspects of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS): the Amsterdam ESHRE/ASRM-Sponsored 3rd PCOS Consensus Workshop Group. Fertil Steril 2012;97:28–38.e25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed\nRotterdam ESHRE/ASRM-Sponsored PCOS Consensus Workshop Group. Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 2004;81:19–25.Google Scholar\nTeede, HJ, Misso, ML, Costello, MF, et al.; International PCOS Network. Recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 2018;110:364–79.Google Scholar\nBronson, R. Letrozole or clomiphene for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1462–4.Google ScholarPubMed\nReindollar, RH, Novak, M, Tho, SPT, McDonough, PG. Adult-onset amenorrhea: a study of 262 patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;155:531–41.Google Scholar\nSantoro, N, Filicori, M, Crowley, WF. Hypogonadotropic disorders in men and women: diagnosis and therapy with pulsatile gonadotropin-releasing hormone. Endocr Rev 1986;7:11–23.Google Scholar\nCaronia, LM, Martin, C, Welt, CK, et al. A genetic basis for functional hypothalamic amenorrhea. N Engl J Med 2011;364:215–25.Google Scholar\nGordon, CM, Ackerman, KE, Berga, SL, et al. Functional hypothalamic amenorrhea: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2017;102:1413–39.Google Scholar\nShufelt, CL, Torbati, T, Dutra, E. Hypothalamic amenorrhea and the long-term health consequences. Semin Reprod Med 2017;35:256–62.Google Scholar\nMelmed, S, Casanueva, FF, Hoffman, AR, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of hyperprolactinemia: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;96:273–88.Google Scholar\nCommittee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology. Practice bulletin no. 128: diagnosis of abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive-aged women. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:197–206.Google Scholar\nCleary-Goldman, J, Malone, FD, Vidaver, J, et al. Impact of maternal age on obstetric outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:983–90.Google Scholar\nBattaglia, DE, Goodwin, P, Klein, NA, Soules, M-R. Influence of maternal age on meiotic spindle assembly in oocytes from naturally cycling women. Hum Reprod 1996;11:2217–22.Google Scholar\nFranasiak, JM, Forman, EJ, Hong, KH, et al. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril 2014;101:656–63.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar\nAmerican College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice and Practice Committee. Female age-related fertility decline. Am Soc Reprod Med 2014;101:633–4.Google Scholar\nBroekmans, FJ, Kwee, J, Hendriks, DJ, Mol, BW, Lambalk, CB. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update 2006;12:685–718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed\nPractice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile female: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2015;103:e44–50.Google Scholar\nLa Marca, A, Papaleo, E, Grisendi, V, Argento, C, Giulini, S, Volpe, A. Development of a nomogram based on markers of ovarian reserve for the individualisation of the follicle-stimulating hormone starting dose in in vitro fertilisation cycles. BJOG 2012;119:1171–9.Google Scholar\nDewailly, D, Andersen, CY, Balen, A, et al. The physiology and clinical utility of anti-Müllerian hormone in women. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:370–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed\nSteiner, AZ, Herring, AH, Kesner, JS, et al. Antimüllerian hormone as a predictor of natural fecundability in women aged 30–42 years. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:798–804.Google Scholar\nHagen, CP, Vestergaard, S, Juul, A, et al. Low concentration of circulating anti-Müllerian hormone is not predictive of reduced fecundability in young healthy women: a prospective cohort study. Fertil Steril 2012;98:1602–8.e2.Google Scholar\nBentzen, JG, Forman, JL, Pinborg, A, et al. Ovarian reserve parameters: a comparison between users and non-users of hormonal contraception. Reprod Biomed Online 2012;25:612–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed\nKallio, S, Puurunen, J, Ruokonen, A, Vaskivuo, T, Piltonen, T, Tapanainen, JS. Antimüllerian hormone levels decrease in women using combined contraception independently of administration route. Fertil Steril 2013;99:1305–10.Google Scholar\nTehrani, FR, Solaymani-Dodaran, M, Azizi, F. A single test of antimullerian hormone in late reproductive-aged women is a good predictor of menopause. Menopause 2009;16:797–802.Google Scholar\nTehrani, FR, Shakeri, N, Solaymani-Dodaran, M, Azizi, F. Predicting age at menopause from serum antimüllerian hormone concentration. Menopause 2011;18:766–70.Google Scholar\nCatteau-Jonard, S, Jamin, SP, Leclerc, A, Gonzalès, J, Dewailly, D, Di Clemente, N. Anti-Mullerian hormone, its receptor, FSH receptor, and androgen receptor genes are overexpressed by granulosa cells from stimulated Follicles in Women with polycystic ovary syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008;93:4456–61.Google Scholar\nRoberts, VJ, Barth, S, el-Roeiy, A, Yen, SS. Expression of inhibin/activin subunits and follistatin messenger ribonucleic acids and proteins in ovarian follicles and the corpus luteum during the human menstrual cycle. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1993;77:1402–10.Google ScholarPubMed\nRosen, MP, Johnstone, E, Addauan-Andersen, C, Cedars, MI. A lower antral follicle count is associated with infertility. Fertil Steril 2011;95:1950–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed\nHendriks, DJ, Mol, B-WJ, Bancsi, LFJMM, Te Velde, ER, Broekmans, FJM, Hendriks, DJ. Antral follicle count in the prediction of poor ovarian response and pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis and comparison with basal follicle-stimulating hormone level in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2005;83:291–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed\nRebar, RW, Erickson, GF, C Yen, SS. Idiopathic premature ovarian failure: clinical and endocrine characteristics. Fertil Steril 1982;37:35–41.Google Scholar\nNelson, LM, Covington, SN, Rebar, RW. An update: spontaneous premature ovarian failure is not an early menopause. Fertil Steril 2005;83:1327–32.Google Scholar\nMonaghan, KG, Lyon, E, Spector, EB. ACMG Standards and Guidelines for fragile X testing: a revision to the disease-specific supplements to the Standards and Guidelines for Clinical Genetics Laboratories of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 2013;15:575–86.Google Scholar\nBetterle, C, Rossi, A, Pria, SD, et al. Premature ovarian failure: autoimmunity and natural history. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 1993;39:35–43.Google Scholar\nFalorni, A, Laureti, S, Candeloro, P, et al. Steroid-cell autoantibodies are preferentially expressed in women with premature ovarian failure who have adrenal autoimmunity. Fertil Steril 2002;78:270–9.Google Scholar\nGreen, DM, Sklar, CA, Boice, JD, et al. Ovarian failure and reproductive outcomes after childhood cancer treatment: results from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2374–81.Google Scholar\nChan, JL, Wang, ET. Oncofertility for women with gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 2017;144:631–6.Google Scholar\nSwart, P, Mol, BWJ, Van Der Veen, F, Van Beurden, M, Redekop, WK, Bossuyt, PMM. The accuracy of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 1995;64:486–91.Google Scholar\nAdelusi, B, Al-Nuaim, L, Makanjuola, D, Khashoggi, T, Chowdhury, N, Kangave, D. Accuracy of hysterosalpingography and laparoscopic hydrotubation in diagnosis of tubal patency. Fertil Steril 1995;63:1016–20.Google Scholar\nLuciano, DE, Exacoustos, C, Luciano, AA. Contrast ultrasonography for tubal patency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014;21:994–8.Google Scholar\nLuciano, DE, Exacoustos, C, Johns, DA, Luciano, AA. Can hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography replace hysterosalpingography in confirming tubal blockage after hysteroscopic sterilization and in the evaluation of the uterus and tubes in infertile patients? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204:79.e1–5.Google Scholar\nMaheux-Lacroix, S, Boutin, A, Moore, L, et al. Hysterosalpingosonography for diagnosing tubal occlusion in subfertile women: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2014;29:953–63.Google Scholar\nJeelani, R, Puscheck, EE. Imaging and the infertility evaluation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2017;60:93–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed\nGroszmann, YS, Benacerraf, BR. Complete evaluation of anatomy and morphology of the infertile patient in a single visit; the modern infertility pelvic ultrasound examination. Fertil Steril 2016;105:1381–93.Google Scholar\nMaheux-Lacroix, S, Li, F, Laberge, PY, Abbott, J. Imaging for polyps and leiomyomas in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:1425–36.Google Scholar\nBermejo, C, Martínez Ten, P, Cantarero, R, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;35:593–601.Google Scholar\nLudwin, A, Pityński, K, Ludwin, I, Banas, T, Knafel, A. Two- and three-dimensional ultrasonography and sonohysterography versus hysteroscopy with laparoscopy in the differential diagnosis of septate, bicornuate, and arcuate uteri. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013;20:90–9.Google Scholar\nGhi, T, Casadio, P, Kuleva, M, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril 2009;92:808–13.Google Scholar\nMarsh, F, Kremer, C, Duffy, S. Delivering an effective outpatient service in gynaecology. A randomised controlled trial analysing the cost of outpatient versus daycase hysteroscopy. BJOG 2004;111:243–8.Google Scholar\nVan Dongen, H, De Kroon, C, Jacobi, C, Trimbos, J, Jansen, F. Diagnostic hysteroscopy in abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2007;114:664–75.Google Scholar\nAhmad, G, O’Flynn, H, Duffy, JMN, Attarbashi, S, Pickersgill, A, Watson, A. Pain relief for office gynaecological procedures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;11:CD007710.Google Scholar\nMattar, OM, Abdalla, AR, Shehata, MSA, et al. Efficacy and safety of tramadol in pain relief during diagnostic outpatient hysteroscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril 2019;111:547–52.Google Scholar\nDueholm, M, Lundorf, E, Hansen, ES, Ledertoug, S, Olesen, F. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis, mapping, and measurement of uterine myomas. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:409–15.Google Scholar\nAmerican College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Evaluation and management of adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:210–26.Google Scholar\nAnthoulakis, C, Nikoloudis, N. Pelvic MRI as the “gold standard” in the subsequent evaluation of ultrasound-indeterminate adnexal lesions: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2014;132:661–8.Google Scholar\nKinkel, K, Lu, Y, Mehdizade, A, Pelte, M-F, Hricak, H. Indeterminate ovarian mass at US: incremental value of second imaging test for characterization—meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis. Radiology 2005;236:85–94.Google Scholar\nChan, YY, Jayaprakasan, K, Zamora, J, Thornton, JG, Raine-Fenning, N, Coomarasamy, A. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:761–71.Google Scholar\nDreisler, E, Sørensen, SS. Mullerian duct anomalies diagnosed by saline contrast sonohysterography: prevalence in a general population. Fertil Steril 2014;102:525–9.Google Scholar\nOppelt, P, Renner, SP, Brucker, S, et al. The VCUAM (Vagina Cervix Uterus Adnex-associated Malformation) classification: a new classification for genital malformations. Fertil Steril 2005;84:1493–7.Google Scholar\nReindollar, RH, Rogers Byrd, J, McDonough, PG. Delayed sexual development: a study of 252 patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981;140:371–80.Google Scholar\nPfeifer, S, Butts, S, Dumesic, D, et al. Uterine septum: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2016;106:530–40.Google Scholar\nHerbst, AL, Ulfelder, H, Poskanzer, DC. Adenocarcinoma of the vagina. N Engl J Med 1971;284:878–81.Google Scholar\n[No authors listed]. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1988;49:944–55.Google Scholar\nChandler, TM, Machan, LS, Harris, AC, Chang, SD. Müllerian duct anomalies: from diagnosis to intervention. Br J Radiol 2009;82:1034–42.Google Scholar\nDay Baird, D, Dunson, DB, Hill, MC, Cousins, D, Schectman, JM. High cumulative incidence of uterine leiomyoma in black and white women: ultrasound evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:100–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar\nStewart, E, Cookson, C, Gandolfo, R, Schulze-Rath, R. Epidemiology of uterine fibroids: a systematic review. BJOG 2017;124:1501–12.Google Scholar\nAmerican Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL): Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide. AAGL practice report: practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of submucous leiomyomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2012;19:152–71.Google Scholar\nCholkeri-Singh, A, Sasaki, KJ. Hysteroscopy for infertile women: a review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015;22:353–62.Google Scholar\nPritts, EA, Parker, WH, Olive, DL. Fibroids and infertility: an updated systematic review of the evidence. Fertil Steril 2009;91:1215.Google Scholar\nSurrey, ES, Minjarez, DA, Stevens, JM, Schoolcraft, WB. Effect of myomectomy on the outcome of assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril 2005;83:1473–9.Google Scholar\nDi Spiezio Sardo, A, Di Carlo, C, Minozzi, S, et al. Efficacy of hysteroscopy in improving reproductive outcomes of infertile couples: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2016;22:479–96.Google Scholar\nBosteels, J, van Wessel, S, Weyers, S, et al. Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;12:CD009461.Google ScholarPubMed\nPractice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Removal of myomas in asymptomatic patients to improve fertility and/or reduce miscarriage rate: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2017;108:416–25.Google Scholar\nLee, SC, Kaunitz, AM, Sanchez-Ramos, L, Rhatigan, RM. The oncogenic potential of endometrial polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1197–205.Google Scholar\nKarayalcin, R, Ozcan, S, Moraloglu, O, Ozyer, S, Mollamahmutoglu, L, Batıoglu, S. Results of 2500 office-based diagnostic hysteroscopies before IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 2010;20:689–93.Google Scholar\nPérez-Medina, T, Bajo-Arenas, J, Salazar, F, et al. Endometrial polyps and their implication in the pregnancy rates of patients undergoing intrauterine insemination: a prospective, randomized study. Hum Reprod 2005;20:1632–5.Google Scholar\nKhan, Z, Goldberg, JM. Hysteroscopic management of Asherman’s syndrome. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017;25:218–28.Google ScholarPubMed\nDeans, R, Abbott, J. Review of intrauterine adhesions. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010;17:555–69.Google Scholar\nHooker, AB, Lemmers, M, Thurkow, AL, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of intrauterine adhesions after miscarriage: prevalence, risk factors and long-term reproductive outcome. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:262–78.Google Scholar\nAAGL Elevating Gynecologic Surgery. AAGL practice report: practice guidelines on intrauterine adhesions developed in collaboration with the European Society of Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE). J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017;24:695–705.Google Scholar\nXiao, S, Wan, Y, Xue, M, et al. Etiology, treatment, and reproductive prognosis of women with moderate-to-severe intrauterine adhesions. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2014;125:121–4.Google Scholar\nGrace, GA, Devaleenal, DB, Natrajan, M. Genital tuberculosis in females. Indian J Med Res 2017;145:425–36.Google Scholar\nCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2016 assisted reproductive technology: national summary report. 2018. Available from: www.cdc.gov/art/pdf/2016-report/ART-2016-National-Summary-Report.pdf.Google Scholar\nCenters for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually transmitted disease surveillance 2017. 2017. Available from: www.cdc.gov/std/stats17/2017-STD-Surveillance-Report_CDC-clearance-9.10.18.pdf.Google Scholar\nTsevat, DG, Wiesenfeld, HC, Parks, C, Peipert, JF. Sexually transmitted diseases and infertility. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:1–9.Google Scholar\nFauconnier, A, Chapron, C, Dubuisson, J-B, Vieira, M, Dousset, B, Bréart, G. Relation between pain symptoms and the anatomic location of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Fertil Steril 2002;78:719–26.Google Scholar\nDe Ziegler, D, Borghese, B, Chapron, C. Endometriosis and infertility: pathophysiology and management. Lancet 2010;376:730–8.Google Scholar\nKissler, S, Hamscho, N, Zangos, S, et al. Diminished pregnancy rates in endometriosis due to impaired uterotubal transport assessed by hysterosalpingoscintigraphy. BJOG 2005;112:1391–6.Google Scholar\nMuzii, L, Tucci, D, Di Feliciantonio, M, et al. Antimullerian hormone is reduced in the presence of ovarian endometriomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2018;110:932–40.Google Scholar\nExacoustos, C, Manganaro, L, Zupi, E. Imaging for the evaluation of endometriosis and adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2014;28:655–81.Google Scholar\nExacoustos, C, Zupi, E, Piccione, E. Ultrasound imaging for ovarian and deep infiltrating endometriosis. Semin Reprod Med 2017;35:5–24.Google Scholar\nBrown, J, Farquhar, C. Endometriosis: an overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;3:CD009590.Google Scholar\nRehmer, JM, Flyckt, RL, Goodman, LR, Falcone, T. Management of endometriomas. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2019;74:232–40.Google Scholar\nHart, RJ, Hickey, M, Maouris, P, Buckett, W. Excisional surgery versus ablative surgery for ovarian endometriomata. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;2:CD004992.Google Scholar\nSurrey, ES. Endometriosis-related infertility: the role of the assisted reproductive technologies. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:482959.Google Scholar\nDunselman, GAJ, Vermeulen, N, Becker, C, et al. ESHRE guideline: management of women with endometriosis. Hum Reprod 2014;29:400–12.Google Scholar\nPractice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Endometriosis and infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2012;98:591–8.Google Scholar\nvan der Houwen, LEE, Lier, MCI, Schreurs, AMF, et al. Continuous oral contraceptives versus long-term pituitary desensitization prior to IVF/ICSI in moderate to severe endometriosis: study protocol of a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod Open 2019;2019:hoz001.Google Scholar\nPractice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Evidence-based treatments for couples with unexplained infertility: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2020;113:305–22.Google Scholar\nGunn, DD, Wright Bates, G. Evidence-based approach to unexplained infertility: a systematic review. Fertil Steril 2016;105:1566–74.Google Scholar\nPisarska, MD, Chan, JL, Lawrenson, K, Gonzalez, TL, Wang, ET. Genetics and epigenetics of infertility and treatments on outcomes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2019;104:1871–86.Google Scholar\nPisarska, MD, Barlow, G, Kuo, F-T. Minireview: roles of the forkhead transcription factor FOXL2 in granulosa cell biology and pathology. Endocrinology 2011;152:1199–208.Google Scholar\nMcGuire, MM, Bowden, W, Engel, NJ, Ahn, HW, Kovanci, E, Rajkovic, A. Genomic analysis using high-resolution single-nucleotide polymorphism arrays reveals novel microdeletions associated with premature ovarian failure. Fertil Steril 2011;95:1595–600.Google Scholar\nCousineau, TM, Domar, AD. Psychological impact of infertility. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2007;21:293–308.Google Scholar\nPeterson, BD, Sejbaek, CS, Pirritano, M, Schmidt, L. Are severe depressive symptoms associated with infertility-related distress in individuals and their partners? Hum Reprod 2014;29:76–82.Google Scholar\nPeterson, BD, Newton, CR, Rosen, KH, Skaggs, GE. Gender differences in how men and women who are referred for IVF cope with infertility stress. Hum Reprod 2006;21:2443–9.Google Scholar\nSchmidt, L, Holstein, BE, Boivin, J, et al. Patients’ attitudes to medical and psychosocial aspects of care in fertility clinics: findings from the Copenhagen Multi-centre Psychosocial Infertility (COMPI) Research Programme. Hum Reprod 2003;18:628–37.Google Scholar\nJordan, C, Revenson, TA. Gender differences in coping with infertility: a meta-analysis. J Behav Med 1999;22:341–58.Google Scholar\nAccessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown\nand may be updated in the future.\nTo save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.\nNote you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.\nFind out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.\n- Evaluation of the Infertile Male’s Partner\n-\n- Book: Infertility in the Male\n- Online publication: 08 July 2023\nTo save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.\n- Evaluation of the Infertile Male’s Partner\n-\n- Book: Infertility in the Male\n- Online publication: 08 July 2023\nTo save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.\n- Evaluation of the Infertile Male’s Partner\n-\n- Book: Infertility in the Male\n- Online publication: 08 July 2023","source_license":"CC0","license_restricted":false}