Citations

Abstract Introduction Fertility preservation is an essential component to cancer survivorship. One third of male survivors experience infertility following gonadotoxic treatments, and expeditious preservation prior to therapy is recommended by oncology guidelines. However, this can be challenging given time constraints, lab expertise, and financial considerations. Objective We describe national practice patterns and identify barriers and facilitators regarding inpatient male fertility preservation. Methods An anonymous 34-item Qualtrics survey was sent to reproductive Urologists in the United States. Email addresses were obtained from public membership databases. Respondents were queried across several domains, including provider demographics, specific inpatient cryopreservation scenarios, and fertility preservation procedures. Results Thirty-nine (21%, n=39/189) responses were received. The majority of respondents were fellowship-trained reproductive urologists 89.7% (35). The majority (97.4%) of respondents offer microdissection testicular sperm extraction (mTESE) for fertility preservation, and many offer conventional TESE (71.8%), traditional ejaculated sperm cryopreservation (71.8%), or microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration (59%). Only 30.8% of respondents offer electroejaculation. Respondents rate non-urology provider awareness of male cancer fertility preservation options at 5.05/10 on a Likert scale. Many (65%) respondents provide formal materials or education to nonurology providers to address this deficit. On average, respondents reported 2.6 inpatient oncofertility preservation consults per month (range 0-25, median=1). Most (60%) of respondents reported that <25% of these patients ultimately complete inpatient preservation. Financial burdens (97%), logistical hurdles (97%), limited awareness (97%), and concern for delay of oncologic care (92%) were identified as the most common barriers for patients precluding fertility preservation. In addition, 85% of respondents also listed difficulty coordinating with other specialists as a barrier. On free-text queries, respondents identified facilitators of fertility preservation as automatically triggered consults, use of an urgent cryopreservation pager, formal fertility preservation pathway within the order set, and utilization of an inpatient coordinator as facilitators that aid in achieving timely fertility preservation prior to gonadotoxic therapies. Conclusions Despite all reproductive urologists offering cryopreservation services and education regarding the urgency and priority of inpatient fertility preservation, less than a quarter of patients complete this process during hospitalization prior to initiation of treatment. This remains the consequence of numerous patient, provider, and facility level barriers, even in systems with robust referral processes. Inpatient fertility preservation remains an underutilized and often missed opportunity. Multidisciplinary interventions are needed to address ongoing barriers. Disclosure No

Abstract Introduction Sperm cryopreservation is becoming increasingly accessible and cost-effective. One of the most common indications for cryopreservation remains prior to gonadotoxic therapies and surgeries. However, it may be used by patients undergoing vasectomy as an alternative to potential future more invasive procedures including reversal or sperm retrieval. Objective To characterize demographic and individual factors associated with the utilization of cryopreservation prior to vasectomy. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of all patients from January 2023 to May 2025 at a single academic medical center who underwent a vasectomy. All 186 patients who completed the pre-vasectomy questionnaire were included in our analysis. At the time of vasectomy consultation, patients were informed of the procedure’s permanent nature and, per guidelines, were educated on future fertility options, including vasectomy reversal and sperm retrieval for use with in vitro fertilization. All patients were also separately offered sperm cryopreservation. Demographic and questionnaire data was collected and analyzed. Pre-vasectomy questionnaire information included age, relationship information, familial information, and reason for vasectomy, among other factors. Numerical variables were described as medians with interquartile range and categorical variables were described in counts. Due to violation of the normality assumption, Fisher’s Exact test was used for categorical variables and the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test was used for numerical variables. Results 186 patients completed the pre-vasectomy questionnaire and were used in our analysis. Of these individuals, 5.4% (n=10) utilized cryopreservation at the time of vasectomy. Individuals utilizing cryopreservation had a median age 5 years younger than those who did not utilize the same service (p = 0.046). Moreover, 40.0% (n=4) of individuals in the cryopreservation group had children compared to 83.5% (n=147) in the no cryopreservation group (p=0.004). Current relationship length was significantly longer for individuals who did not utilize cryopreservation, with a median reported relationship length of 11 years as compared to a median length of 5 years for individuals utilizing cryopreservation (p=0.025). The shorter relationship length is likely related to an additional finding that the percentage of individuals who utilized cryopreservation were married approximately 30% less often than individuals who did not use the same service (p=0.039). Conclusions While only a small proportion of patients undergoing vasectomy choose to pursue cryopreservation despite counselling at their visit, significant differences in demographic and individual characteristics were observed for those who did. These individuals tended to be younger, married at lower rates, without children, and in shorter relationships. With improved access to reproductive services, further work is needed to understand decision choices for men offered sperm cryopreservation prior to permanent sterilization. Disclosure No

Abstract Introduction The EROS (Erectile Restoration Outcomes and Satisfaction) registry provides prospective questionnaire-based follow-up after IPP was founded in 2020 at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Objective We sought to assess general trends in the open-ended responses portion of the questionnaire. Methods Data were collected from 2020 to 2025, with a total of 568 responses. The survey included six open-ended questions pertaining to lifestyle change since IPP, reasons not to repeat the procedure, impediments to use, dissatisfaction, what patients wish they had known more about the procedure, and other recommendations. Evaluable data included 6-month responses from Rochester, Jacksonville, and Phoenix. Results Open-ended feedback was given by 66% of patients on what they wished they had known, 54% gave other recommendations, 38% gave lifestyle feedback, 7% elaborated upon reasons not using, 3% on reasons for dissatisfaction, and 2% on reasons they would not repeat IPP. There was an overall very positive response (“Significant Improvement”, n=74.3%) from those who underwent the IPP placement, with some patients reporting that it was far more convenient than other forms of treatment, and even increased spontaneity in their sexual lives, leading to improved relationships. Among the reported responses are increased confidence (n=39.4%), increased sexual activity (n=13.3%), and improved health and exercise levels (n=6.6%). When questioning patients on why they would not repeat the procedure and what their sources of dissatisfaction were, of those who responded to each question (n=12, n=16), the most report complaint was exaggeration of pre-existing curves (n=41.7%, n=25.0%), particularly due to Peyronie’s disease. When questioned about what prevents use, the main response was partner-related or due to personal problems (n=45.2%). The patients did not have many recommendations but hoped for a better way to deflate and inflate the device (n=20.4%) and reported adequate pre-operative education and use of the pump. The table below outlines the categories of responses and the percentage of each keyword reported per question type. Conclusions In addition to standard pre-operative IPP counseling, providers should provide additional focus on potential difficulty with device inflation/deflation, length loss (IPP not in glans), pain/ recovery expectations, potential of new or worsened curve (erect or flaccid), and potential change in sensation. IPP satisfaction is high, as only 2% of patients gave responses on why they would not repeat the IPP, with many men expressing an increased level of overall confidence. Disclosure No

Abstract Introduction Chronic scrotal content pain (CSCP), defined as three or more months of scrotal pain interfering with daily life, affects approximately 100,000 men annually in the United States. Historically, the absence of standardized guidelines led to wide variability in diagnosis and treatment. At the time of our study design and data collection, no formal guidance existed for CSCP. In April 2025, after the study’s completion, the American Urological Association (AUA) published its first clinical guidelines for CSCP. Our findings now offer important context regarding real-world practice patterns before guideline publication. Objective To characterize diagnostic and treatment strategies for CSCP among U.S. reproductive urologists. Methods An anonymous 25-question Qualtrics survey was distributed to U.S.-based reproductive urologists. The survey assessed physician demographics, diagnostic evaluations, conservative and surgical treatment strategies, and perceived patient outcomes. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and comparisons were performed using Mann-Whitney U, chi-square, or Fisher’s exact tests, as appropriate. Results Of 183 invited physicians, 41 (22.4%) completed the survey in full. All respondents were fellowship-trained, practicing urologists, with most board-certified (82.9%). Respondents were nearly evenly split between ≤5 years (48.8%) and >5 years (51.2%) in practice. Among ten conservative treatment options, reassurance (41.5%) and NSAIDs (31.7%) were the most frequently selected first-line treatments, with median ranks of 2.5 and 2, respectively (Figure 1). Opioid medications were the least favored (median rank: 10), with 56.1% ranking them last. Pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) had a favorable median rank of 3 and was ranked higher by those with ≤5 years in practice compared to those in practice >5 years (median: 3 vs. 4, p = 0.019). GABA analogues and tricyclic antidepressants were assigned median ranks of 6 and 7.5, respectively. The most commonly performed surgical procedure for CSCP was microsurgical denervation of the spermatic cord (MDSC, 95.1%), followed by varicocelectomy (92.7%), vasectomy reversal (78.0%), epididymectomy (73.2%), and orchiectomy (51.2%). For post-vasectomy pain syndrome, MDSC was preferred by 63.4%, followed by vasectomy reversal (22.0%) and epididymectomy (9.8%). Among those performing vasectomy reversals, 80% of patients paid out-of-pocket (IQR: 50.0–93.5%). Respondents perceived surgical management as more effective than conservative treatment, with median complete symptom resolution rates of 70% (IQR: 50–80%) versus 25% (IQR: 10–40%) (p < 0.001). Only 7.3% reported using validated tools like the Chronic Orchialgia Symptom Index (COSI) to evaluate patient outcomes. Conclusions Our study offers a contemporary snapshot of CSCP management among reproductive urologists, revealing substantial variability in practice. Surgery was consistently perceived as more effective than conservative approaches. These findings underscore areas of alignment and divergence with the newly released AUA guidelines and support the need for future comparative trials and implementation studies to guide standardized, evidence-based care. Disclosure No

Abstract Introduction Oncologic testicular sperm extraction (oncoTESE) remains a poorly defined concept that is a heterogeneous and understudied fertility preservation option for cancer patients with male gonads. Given variation in practice patterns, reproductive insurance coverage, and provider availability, there is significant diversity among the accepted indications, desired evaluations, and surgical practices afforded to patients facing a cancer diagnosis. Objective This study aimed to characterize and help further define oncoTESE practice patterns across the United States. Methods A 34-item, anonymized survey assessed provider demographics and oncoTESE practice patterns, including indications, contraindications, workflows, and institutional barriers surrounding OncoTESE procedures. A survey was created and electronically distributed to reproductive urologists across the United States using email addresses obtained via society membership websites. Results Thirty-eight urologists (20%, 38/189) from 21 states responded to the survey. Most (95%, 36/38) were fellowship-trained reproductive urologists, and nearly all (87%, 33/38) reported offering oncoTESE to indicated patients. The most cited indications for oncoTESE were azoospermia (78%, 28/36), anejaculation (72%, 26/36), and severe oligozoospermia or cryptozoospermia on ejaculated specimen (53%, 19/36). Less commonly reported indications included prepubertal or peripubertal status (33%, 12/36) and elevated sperm DNA fragmentation (19%, 7/36). Relative contraindications included inability to consent (86%, 31/36), clinical instability (83%, 30/36), thrombocytopenia (61%, 22/36), and a history of remote chemotherapy (58%, 21/36). When asked how many semen analyses are obtained to confirm azoospermia before proceeding to oncoTESE in patients able to ejaculate, the majority reported two analyses (67%, 24/36), while 28% (10/36) reported one. There was stronger consensus that oncoTESE includes sperm retrieval during back-table orchiectomy (94%, 34/36) and ipsilateral microTESE during partial orchiectomy (86%, 31/36). Greater variability was noted regarding contralateral microTESE at the time of orchiectomy (64%, 23/36), procedures for non-genitourinary malignancies (61%, 22/36), and delayed procedures performed years after diagnosis (42%, 15/36). (Figure 1) Estimated patient costs for oncoTESE were most commonly reported as $2,000–$5,000 (39%, 14/36), followed by $500–$2,000 (22%, 8/36), $5,000–$10,000 (19%, 7/36), and over $10,000 (3%, 1/36); 14% (5/36) were unsure. On a 10-point Likert scale, the most significant barriers to performing oncoTESE were logistical challenges (mean 6.6, median 8), followed by patient cost (mean 5.4, median 5.5) and patient illness (mean 5.3, median 5.0). Conclusions This multi-institutional survey found strong agreement among reproductive urologists on core procedural elements, but substantial variation on oncoTESE definition, patient selection criteria, pre-procedural evaluation, and fertility preservation management. Similar institutional barriers across centers highlight opportunities to improve accessibility and standardize oncoTESE practices. Disclosure No

AbstractDue to multiple medical advances over the past several years, angiographic investigation into arterial insufficiency as the cause of erectile dysfunction has decreased. Due to this, there is a general lack of familiarity with penile angiography technique and arterial anatomy, among current practicing interventional radiologists. Some potential indications for penile angiography include evaluation of penile trauma, high-flow priapism, further diagnostic evaluation of an abnormal penile Doppler ultrasound, or in the evaluation or treatment of erectile dysfunction with endovascular or surgical treatments. These indications, although relatively rare, still require practicing IRs to be familiar with angiographic anatomy of the penis. This article will briefly review angiographic technique in penile angiography with an emphasis on arterial anatomy.

Abstract Introduction Nonischemic priapism typically occurs secondary to penile trauma, resulting in increased blood flow into the penis without decreased outflow resulting in a clinically non-painful, partially rigid erection. Per the American Urologic Association guidelines, surgical treatment is discouraged, and following conservative management, first line treatment is arteriography with selective arterial embolization. This procedure is generally highly successful but it does carry a risk of erectile dysfunction as well as priapism recurrence. Objective Herein we present the first known case of ultrasound guided thrombin injection in an adult for nonischemic priapism treatment after persistent priapism and arterial blush following arterial embolization. Methods A 44-year-old male presented with an eight-month history of partial tumescence and erectile dysfunction after an episode of unwitnessed loss of consciousness resulting in the subsequent development of gross hematuria and dysuria. Physical examination revealed a semi-firm penis with suspected high-flow priapism. He initially presented to the emergency department, whereby a cystogram and cross sectional abdominal imaging were unrevealing. Initial outpatient cystoscopy revealed a urethral polyp which resolved on subsequent repeat testing. Following this an outpatient penile duplex doppler ultrasound was performed demonstrating a right pseudoaneurysm at the penile base measuring 13 mm in diameter with an arteriovenous fistulous communication to the corpus cavernosum. MRI demonstrates fibrotic changes within the right corpus cavernosum and tunica albuginea indicating prior traumatic penile injury. At the time the patient had approximately 25% tumescence at rest and was only able to obtain a slightly firmer erection, but was still able to achieve orgasm. After extensive conversation and given a trial of conservative management, the patient elected to proceed with angioembolization. An angiogram was completed which demonstrated a blush of contrast in the area of the bulbourethral artery. Despite successful deployment and coil embolization of the pseudoaneurysm, there was noted continued filling of the patent pseudoaneurysm from small branched collateral vessels. The patient tolerated the procedure well, and had reduction of his baseline penile tumescence and some erectile function recovery, requiring oral phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. There was concern for complete occlusion of the dorsal penile artery with repeat embolization, which may ultimately worsen erectile dysfunction. He remained incompletely satisfied with response to oral therapy. Results It was ultimately decided to pursue an ultrasound guided thrombin injection, which has been reported in a handful of cases as a primary intervention for priapism. During the procedure, 200 units of thrombin was injected into the pseudoaneurysm under ultrasound guidance resulting in immediate cessation of arterial flow. Post-procedure angiography demonstrated effective resolution. Conclusions High-flow priapism is a relatively uncommon condition, managed generally with embolization as first line treatment, with success rates reported at 89 to 100% and recurrence only occurring in 30% of patients. Recurrence is generally treated with repeat embolization which has been reported to cause erectile dysfunction in 15 to 22% of cases. Percutaneous ultrasound-guided thrombin injection has the potential to be an excellent second-line treatment option for pseudoaneurysm closure in correcting nonischemic priapism, albeit with limited data, but suspected high efficacy and potentially diminished rates of erectile dysfunction. Disclosure No.

Abstract Introduction Intracavernosal injections (ICI) is a well-established treatment for erectile dysfunction with common complications including priapism, penile ecchymosis and injection site pain. A rarer complication is breakage and retention of the needle inside the penis during self-injection, with only 16 cases reported in the literature from 1991 to 2023. Objective To report a case of needle breakage and retention as a complication of ICI and describe the optimal management of retained needle in the penis. Methods A 69-year-old male with a history of erectile dysfunction on TriMix presented to the Urology Department after half of his ICI needle broke off in the right side of his penis following self-injection. He denied having any pain or discomfort but reported that a small nodule had formed at the site. On physical examination, a nodule was palpated at the right base of his penis. He underwent pelvic X-ray and penile ultrasound, noting a 4-5 mm foreign body in the right base of the penis without gas in the soft tissue. As the retained needle was not significantly affecting him, he decided not to proceed with intervention and continued with ICI on the contralateral side. He began noticing burning pain at the site of injection, with development of a hard nodule that self-resolved each time. Due to worsening erectile function, he returned to clinic one year later to discuss inflatable penile prosthesis placement, where he inquired about removal of the retained needle. A small, nontender nodule was still noted at the right base of the penis. Results The patient underwent penile exploration in the operating room, revealing an obvious inflammatory fibrous nodule at the right base of the penis corresponding to the location of the needle on previous ultrasound. There was also a similar, smaller nodule contralaterally where the patient had continued ICI. Ultrasound guidance was used intraoperatively to identify the needle, then a spinal needle was used to triangulate with the needle fragment. The penis was sharply dissected along the spinal needle with iris scissors until the 4 mm needle fragment was identified and removed in its entirety. Dissection then began to excise the inflammatory nodule. However, despite attempts to completely mobilize Buck’s fascia and the nerves, the neurovascular bundles were quite adherent to the nodule from an inflammatory reaction and thus it was unable to be excised. A small possible corporotomy was then identified and repaired using 2-0 PDS. Injectable saline was then used to induce an erection and confirm no defects in the corpora. The patient recovered well post-operatively without any complications, and the nodules were noted to be much smaller at his one-month postoperative visit. Conclusions ICI needle breakage and entrapment in the penis is a rare complication. The diagnosis of needle retention includes imaging such as pelvic radiographs or penile ultrasound to locate the needle. While less invasive approaches can be attempted for removal, they may be less effective and cause further damage to surrounding tissue. Surgical exploration under ultrasound guidance is a safe and effective approach to needle removal. Disclosure No.