Evaluation of the Infertile Male’s Partner

- Infertility in the Male - Infertility in the Male - Copyright page - Contents - Contributors - Foreword - Abbreviations - Introduction - Section 1 Scientific Foundations of Male Infertility - Section 2 Clinical Evaluation of the Infertile Male - Chapter 7 Infertility as a Metric of Men’s Health - Chapter 8 Office Evaluation of the Subfertile Male - Chapter 9 Evaluation of the Infertile Male’s Partner - Chapter 10 Imaging the Male Reproductive System - Chapter 11 Effects of Environmental Chemicals on Male Reproduction - Chapter 12 Endocrine Causes of Male Infertility – Diagnosis and Treatment - Chapter 13 Spermatogenesis – Diagnosis of Normal and Abnormal States - Chapter 14 Inheritance and Male Fertility - Chapter 15 The Varicocele – Approaches to Diagnosis and Management - Chapter 16 Infection, Inflammation, and Immunological Causes of Male Infertility - Section 3 Laboratory Diagnosis of Male Infertility - Section 4 Treatment of Male Infertility - Section 5 Health Care Systems and Culture - Index - References from Section 2 - Clinical Evaluation of the Infertile Male Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 July 2023 Book contents - Infertility in the Male - Infertility in the Male - Copyright page - Contents - Contributors - Foreword - Abbreviations - Introduction - Section 1 Scientific Foundations of Male Infertility - Section 2 Clinical Evaluation of the Infertile Male - Chapter 7 Infertility as a Metric of Men’s Health - Chapter 8 Office Evaluation of the Subfertile Male - Chapter 9 Evaluation of the Infertile Male’s Partner - Chapter 10 Imaging the Male Reproductive System - Chapter 11 Effects of Environmental Chemicals on Male Reproduction - Chapter 12 Endocrine Causes of Male Infertility – Diagnosis and Treatment - Chapter 13 Spermatogenesis – Diagnosis of Normal and Abnormal States - Chapter 14 Inheritance and Male Fertility - Chapter 15 The Varicocele – Approaches to Diagnosis and Management - Chapter 16 Infection, Inflammation, and Immunological Causes of Male Infertility - Section 3 Laboratory Diagnosis of Male Infertility - Section 4 Treatment of Male Infertility - Section 5 Health Care Systems and Culture - Index - References Infertility 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. - Type - Chapter - Information - Infertility in the Male , pp. 146 - 164Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023 Pfeifer, S, Butts, S, Dumesic, D, et al. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile male: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2015;103:e18–25.Google Scholar American Society for Reproductive Medicine. FAQs about infertility. 2017. Available from: www.reproductivefacts.org/faqs/frequently-asked-questions-about-infertility/.Google Scholar Gee, RE, Newman, J. Exposure to toxic environmental agents. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:931–5.Google Scholar Penzias, A, Bendikson, K, Butts, S, et al. Smoking and infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2018;110:611–18.Google Scholar American 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 Setton, 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 Practice 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 Miller, 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 Pearlstone, 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 McGovern, 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 Murray, 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 Coutifaris, 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 Azziz, R, Carmina, E, Chen, Z, et al. Polycystic ovary syndrome. Nat Rev Dis Prim 2016;2:16057.Google Scholar Fauser, 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 Rotterdam 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 Teede, 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 Bronson, R. Letrozole or clomiphene for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1462–4.Google ScholarPubMed Reindollar, 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 Santoro, 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 Caronia, LM, Martin, C, Welt, CK, et al. A genetic basis for functional hypothalamic amenorrhea. N Engl J Med 2011;364:215–25.Google Scholar Gordon, 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 Shufelt, CL, Torbati, T, Dutra, E. Hypothalamic amenorrhea and the long-term health consequences. Semin Reprod Med 2017;35:256–62.Google Scholar Melmed, 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 Committee 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 Cleary-Goldman, J, Malone, FD, Vidaver, J, et al. Impact of maternal age on obstetric outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:983–90.Google Scholar Battaglia, 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 Franasiak, 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 American 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 Broekmans, 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 Practice 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 La 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 Dewailly, 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 Steiner, 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 Hagen, 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 Bentzen, 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 Kallio, 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 Tehrani, 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 Tehrani, FR, Shakeri, N, Solaymani-Dodaran, M, Azizi, F. Predicting age at menopause from serum antimüllerian hormone concentration. Menopause 2011;18:766–70.Google Scholar Catteau-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 Roberts, 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 Rosen, 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 Hendriks, 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 Rebar, RW, Erickson, GF, C Yen, SS. Idiopathic premature ovarian failure: clinical and endocrine characteristics. Fertil Steril 1982;37:35–41.Google Scholar Nelson, LM, Covington, SN, Rebar, RW. An update: spontaneous premature ovarian failure is not an early menopause. Fertil Steril 2005;83:1327–32.Google Scholar Monaghan, 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 Betterle, C, Rossi, A, Pria, SD, et al. Premature ovarian failure: autoimmunity and natural history. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 1993;39:35–43.Google Scholar Falorni, 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 Green, 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 Chan, JL, Wang, ET. Oncofertility for women with gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 2017;144:631–6.Google Scholar Swart, 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 Adelusi, 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 Luciano, DE, Exacoustos, C, Luciano, AA. Contrast ultrasonography for tubal patency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014;21:994–8.Google Scholar Luciano, 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 Maheux-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 Jeelani, R, Puscheck, EE. Imaging and the infertility evaluation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2017;60:93–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Groszmann, 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 Maheux-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 Bermejo, 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 Ludwin, 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 Ghi, 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 Marsh, 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 Van 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 Ahmad, 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 Mattar, 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 Dueholm, 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 American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Evaluation and management of adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:210–26.Google Scholar Anthoulakis, 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 Kinkel, 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 Chan, 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 Dreisler, E, Sørensen, SS. Mullerian duct anomalies diagnosed by saline contrast sonohysterography: prevalence in a general population. Fertil Steril 2014;102:525–9.Google Scholar Oppelt, 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 Reindollar, RH, Rogers Byrd, J, McDonough, PG. Delayed sexual development: a study of 252 patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981;140:371–80.Google Scholar Pfeifer, S, Butts, S, Dumesic, D, et al. Uterine septum: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2016;106:530–40.Google Scholar Herbst, AL, Ulfelder, H, Poskanzer, DC. Adenocarcinoma of the vagina. N Engl J Med 1971;284:878–81.Google Scholar [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 Chandler, TM, Machan, LS, Harris, AC, Chang, SD. Müllerian duct anomalies: from diagnosis to intervention. Br J Radiol 2009;82:1034–42.Google Scholar Day 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 Stewart, E, Cookson, C, Gandolfo, R, Schulze-Rath, R. Epidemiology of uterine fibroids: a systematic review. BJOG 2017;124:1501–12.Google Scholar American 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 Cholkeri-Singh, A, Sasaki, KJ. Hysteroscopy for infertile women: a review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015;22:353–62.Google Scholar Pritts, EA, Parker, WH, Olive, DL. Fibroids and infertility: an updated systematic review of the evidence. Fertil Steril 2009;91:1215.Google Scholar Surrey, 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 Di 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 Bosteels, 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 Practice 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 Lee, 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 Karayalcin, 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 Pérez-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 Khan, Z, Goldberg, JM. Hysteroscopic management of Asherman’s syndrome. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017;25:218–28.Google ScholarPubMed Deans, R, Abbott, J. Review of intrauterine adhesions. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010;17:555–69.Google Scholar Hooker, 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 AAGL 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 Xiao, 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 Grace, GA, Devaleenal, DB, Natrajan, M. Genital tuberculosis in females. Indian J Med Res 2017;145:425–36.Google Scholar Centers 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 Centers 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 Tsevat, DG, Wiesenfeld, HC, Parks, C, Peipert, JF. Sexually transmitted diseases and infertility. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:1–9.Google Scholar Fauconnier, 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 De Ziegler, D, Borghese, B, Chapron, C. Endometriosis and infertility: pathophysiology and management. Lancet 2010;376:730–8.Google Scholar Kissler, 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 Muzii, 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 Exacoustos, 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 Exacoustos, C, Zupi, E, Piccione, E. Ultrasound imaging for ovarian and deep infiltrating endometriosis. Semin Reprod Med 2017;35:5–24.Google Scholar Brown, J, Farquhar, C. Endometriosis: an overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;3:CD009590.Google Scholar Rehmer, JM, Flyckt, RL, Goodman, LR, Falcone, T. Management of endometriomas. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2019;74:232–40.Google Scholar Hart, RJ, Hickey, M, Maouris, P, Buckett, W. Excisional surgery versus ablative surgery for ovarian endometriomata. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;2:CD004992.Google Scholar Surrey, ES. Endometriosis-related infertility: the role of the assisted reproductive technologies. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:482959.Google Scholar Dunselman, GAJ, Vermeulen, N, Becker, C, et al. ESHRE guideline: management of women with endometriosis. Hum Reprod 2014;29:400–12.Google Scholar Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Endometriosis and infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2012;98:591–8.Google Scholar van 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 Practice 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 Gunn, DD, Wright Bates, G. Evidence-based approach to unexplained infertility: a systematic review. Fertil Steril 2016;105:1566–74.Google Scholar Pisarska, 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 Pisarska, 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 McGuire, 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 Cousineau, TM, Domar, AD. Psychological impact of infertility. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2007;21:293–308.Google Scholar Peterson, 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 Peterson, 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 Schmidt, 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 Jordan, C, Revenson, TA. Gender differences in coping with infertility: a meta-analysis. J Behav Med 1999;22:341–58.Google Scholar Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future. To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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. Note 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. Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service. - Evaluation of the Infertile Male’s Partner - - Book: Infertility in the Male - Online publication: 08 July 2023 To 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. - Evaluation of the Infertile Male’s Partner - - Book: Infertility in the Male - Online publication: 08 July 2023 To 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. - Evaluation of the Infertile Male’s Partner - - Book: Infertility in the Male - Online publication: 08 July 2023