Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 1
  • Print publication year: 2009
  • Online publication date: May 2010

Chapter 30 - Psychological issues of infertility and assisted reproductive technology

Summary

This chapter offers a discussion of basic normal ejaculatory duct embryology, anatomy, and physiology to lay a foundation for an understanding of the clinical findings and treatment of obstruction. In the male the mesonephric duct continues to develop into the epididymis, vas deferens, seminal vesicle, and ejaculatory duct. The remnant Müllerian structures in the male are the prostatic utricle and appendix testis, and in some men remnant Müllerian duct structures can be found in the midline of the prostate as Müllerian duct cysts. The ultrasonographic diagnosis of ejaculatory duct obstruction is based upon the finding of dilation of the seminal vesicles and abnormalities in the region of the ejaculatory ducts. Stricturing of the resected ejaculatory ducts may represent the most significant complication in regard to fertility, and may occur immediately or in a delayed fashion.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

References

[1] LeeS. Counseling in Male Infertility. London: Blackwell, 1996.
[2] BeckerG. Healing the Infertile Family: Strengthening Your Relationship in Search of Parenthood. New York, NY: Bantam, 1990.
[3] MahlstedtPP. Psychological issues of infertility and assisted reproductive technology. In: LipshultzLI, HowardsSS, eds. Infertility in the Male, 3rd edn. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Year Book, 1997: 462–75.
[4] LipshultzL. Addressing male reproductive issues: the Reproductive Health Council of the American Foundation for Urologic Disease. Family Building (Resolve), 2003; 3 (1): 21.
[5] PetokWD. The psychology of gender-specific infertility diagnoses. In: CovingtonSN, BurnsLH, eds. Infertility Counseling: a Comprehensive Handbook for Clinicians, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006: 37–60.
[6] HjelmstedtA, AnderssonL, Skoog-SvanbergA, et al. Gender differences in psychological reactions to infertility among couples seeking IVF and ICSI treatment. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78: 42–8.
[7] RoopnarinesinghR, El-Hantati, KeaneD, HarrisonR. An assessment of mood in males attending an infertility clinic. Ir Med J 2004; 97: 310–11.
[8] DhaliwalLK, GuptaKR, GopalanS, KulharaP. Psychological aspects of infertility due to various causes: a prospective study. Int J Fertil Womens Med 2004; 49: 44–8.
[9] SherrodRA. Male infertility: the element of disguise. J Psychosoc Nurs Men Health Serv 2006; 44 (10): 30–7.
[10] FelderH, MeyerF, OsbornW, et al. Psychological aspects in the therapy of the andrological sterility factor with regard to the unfulfilled wish for a child. Andrologia 1996; 28 (Suppl 1): 53–6.
[11] MasonMC. Male Infertility: Men Talking. London: Routledge, 1993.
[12] NachtigallR, BeckerG, WoznyM. The effects of gender specific diagnosis on men’s and women’s response to infertility. Fertil Steril 1992; 57: 113–21.
[13] IrvineSCE. Male infertility and its effect on male sexuality. Sex Marital Ther 1996; 11: 273–80.
[14] KademP, MikulincerM, NathansonYE, BartoovB. Psychological aspects of male infertility. Br J Med Psychol 1990; 63: 73–80.
[15] HardyE, MakuchMY. Gender, infertility, and ART. In: VayenaE, RowePJ, GriffinPD, eds. Current Practices and Controversies in Assisted Reproduction. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002: 272–80.
[16] BoivinJ, Shoog-SvanbergA, AnderssonL, et al. Distress level in men undergoing ICSI versus IVF. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 1403–6.
[17] PookM, KrauseW, RohrieB. Coping with infertility: distress and changes in sperm quality. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 1487–92.
[18] ClarkeRN, KlockSC, GeogheganA, TravassosDE. Relationship between psychological stress and semen quality among in-vitro fertilization patients. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 753–8.
[19] Kohut, H.The Restoration of Self. New York, NY: International Universities Press, 1977.
[20] MahlstedtPP, GreenfeldDA. Assisted reproduction with donor gametes: the need for patient preparation. Fertil Steril 1989; 52: 908–14.
[21] Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2006 Guidelines for Gamete and Embryo Donation. Fertil Steril 2006; 86 (Suppl 4): S38–50.
[22] BergerDM, EisenA, ShuberJDoodyKE. Psychological patterns in donor insemination. Can J Psychiatry 1986; 31: 818–23.
[23] Seibel, MM. Therapeutic donor insemination. In: SeibelMM, CrockinSL, eds. Family Building through Egg and Sperm Donation: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Issues. Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 1996: 33–45.
[24] MahlstedtPP, ProbascoKA. Sperm donors: their attitude toward providing medical and psychosocial information for recipient families. Fertil Steril 1991; 56: 747–53.
[25] ThornP. Recipient counseling for donor insemination. In: CovingtonSN, BurnsLH, eds. Infertility Counseling: a Comprehensive Handbook for Clinicians, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006: 305–18.
[26] MarshallLA. Ethical and legal issues in the use of related donors for therapeutic insemination. Urol Clin North Am 2002; 29: 855–61.
[27] NikolettosN, AsimakopoulosB, HatzissabasI. Intrafamilial sperm donation: ethical questions and concerns. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 933–6.
[28] GregoireAT, MayerRC. The impregnators. Fertil Steril 1965; 16: 130–4.
[29] DanielsK. Building a Family with the Assistance of Donor Insemination. Palmerston North, New Zealand, Dunmore Press, 2004.
[30] CooperSL, GlazerES. Beyond Infertility: New Paths of Parenthood. New York, NY: Lexington Books, 1994.
[31] Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Informing offspring of their conception by gamete donation. Fertil Steril 2004; 82 (Suppl 1): 212–16.
[32] ApplegarthLD. Emotional implications. In AdashiEY, RockJA, RosenwaksZ, eds. Reproductive Endocrinology, Surgery, and Technology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven, l996: vol. 2, 1954–68.
[33] HershbergerP, KlockSC, BarnesRB. Disclosure decisions among pregnant women who received donor oocytes: a phenomenological study. Fertil Steril 2007; 87: 288–96.
[34] SchoverLR, CollinsRL, RichardsS. Psychological aspects of donor insemination: evaluation and follow-up of recipient couples. Fertil Steril 1992; 57: 583–90.
[35] KlockSC, JacobMC, MaierD. A prospective study of donor insemination recipients: secrecy, privacy, and disclosure. Fertil Steril 1994; 62: 477–84.
[36] DurnaEM, BebeJ, SteigradSJ, LeaderLR. Donor insemination: attitudes of parents towards disclosure. Med J Aust 1997; 167: 256–9.
[37] GreenfeldDA, KlockSC. Disclosure decisions among known and anonymous oocyte donation recipients. Fertil Steril 2004; 81: 1565–71.
[38] ScheibJE, RiordanM, RubinS. Choosing identity release sperm donation: the parents’ perspective 13–18 years later. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 1115–27.
[39] ErnstE, IngerslevHJ, SchouO, StoltenbergH. Attitudes among sperm donors in 1992 and 2002: a Danish questionnaire survey. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007; 86: 327–33.
[40] JorgensenHK, HartlingOJ. Anonymity in connection with sperm donation. Med Law 2007; 26: 37–43.
[41] RumballA, AdairV. Telling the story: parents’ scripts for donor offspring. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 1392–9.
[42] KirkmanM. Parents’ contributions to the narrative identity of offspring of donor-assisted conception. Soc Sci Med 2003; 57: 2229–42.
[43] MacDougallK, BeckerG, ScheibJE, NachtigallRD. Strategies for disclosure: how parents approach telling their children that they were conceived with donor gametes. Fertil Steril 2007; 87: 524–33.
[44] Leeb-LundbergS, KjellbergS, SydsjöG. Helping parents to tell their children about the use of donor insemination (DI) and determining their opinions about open-identity sperm donors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006; 85: 78–81.
[45] De JongeC, BarrattCLR. Gamete donation: a question of anonymity. Fertil Steril 2006; 85: 500–1.