Intraoperative calculus or hemorrhage in transurethral seminal vesiculoscopy as a risk factor for recurrent hemospermia.

We have summarized our experience regarding transurethral seminal vesiculoscopy (TUSV) and analyzed both its recurrence status and the risk factors for recurrence. From January 2010 to December 2020, 48 patients with intractable hemospermia received successful TUSV at Taichung Invalids General Hospital. Upon analysis of the intraoperative findings, the five-year disease-free Survival rates (DFS) were 74.1% in the no calculus group compared to 37.1% in the calculus group with a significant difference (log-rank p = 0.015), 75.0% in the no hemorrhage or no blood clot group compared to 43.2% in the hemorrhage or blood clot group with significant difference (log-rank p = 0.032). Univariate analysis showed intraoperative calculus (p = 0.040; HR: 2.94, 95% CI: 1.05-8.21) to be significantly associated with recurrence (p < 0.05). Patients with intractable hemospermia who were diagnosed with stones or blood clots found during TUSV experienced a higher rate of hemospermia recurrence.

Introduction

Hemospermia, hematospermia or haematospermia are all defined as blood appearance in the semen [1]. The symptom usually resolves spontaneously in most cases. The mechanisms surrounding the occurrence of hemospermia can be inflammation, infection, lithiasis, cyst formation, obstruction, tumor, vascular related, trauma, iatrogenic related and systemic origin [2, 3]. Recommended imaging studies include transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [2]. TRUS is less expensive and less diagnostic than the other tests, but is more commonly used as a diagnostic tool [4, 5].

Wang et al. first described intractable hemospermia as a condition which has persisted for more than 4 months despite medical treatment [6]. Recent studies have defined intractable hemospermia as a condition which has persisted for at least 3 months, with conservative therapy providing to be unsuccessful [7-11]. Patients often experienced severe anxiety due to the condition, which in turn affected their psychological health and quality of sexual life.

Through advancements in endoscopy technology, in vivo transurethral seminal vesiculoscopy (TUSV) was first introduced in 2002 [12]. Subsequently, TUSV has been used as a diagnostic and treatment procedure for recurrent hemospermia, persistent hemospermia and intractable hemospermia [9, 11, 13–16]. TUSV also has a higher diagnostic rate than TRUS [4].

The recurrence rate after TUSV treatment has been mentioned to be in a range from 3.4% to 11.76% [9, 11, 13–16]. To the best of our knowledge, there are currently no studies investigating recurrence after TUSV. In this study, we sorted through 48 successful cases and analyzed their recurrence status and risk factors for recurrence.

Materials and methods

Patients

This study enrolled patients who had been diagnosed with intractable hemospermia and received successful TUSV treatment during the period from January 2010 to December 2020 in Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan, Republic of China. The diagnosis of hemospermia relied on photos of semen which patients took after sexual activity. The enrolled patients took a serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), coagulation tests and TRUS.

For treatment of hemospermia, the empiric antibiotic ciprofloxacin, 400 mg every 12 hours per os (PO), was administered for at least 2 weeks. For patients with intractable hemospermia who were willing to undergo surgery in order to relieve symptoms, we provided TUSV.

This is a retrospective study. All patient records and data were fully anonymized and de-identified prior to analysis. Therefore no informed consent was deemed necessary. The study protocol conformed to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki, and was granted by the ethics committee of Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan, Republic of China. The institutional review board number was CE22060A.

Surgical techniques

Each patient received either general anesthesia or spinal anesthesia and was placed in the lithotomy position. A semi-rigid ureteroscope (6/7.5-Fr; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) was inserted into the urethra and introduced to the verumontanum. The bilateral seminal vesicles were then entered through the ejaculation duct or fenestrated from the utricle. Intraoperative manifestations, such as calculus, hemorrhage and mucosal lesion, were recorded. Seminal vesicle fluid was then collected for a culture exam. Calculus removal or a biopsy would then be performed depending on the intraoperative manifestations. After the procedure, 10ml of normal saline with an 80mg gentamycin irrigation into the seminal vesicle would then be done [9].

Statistical analysis

Numeric variables are expressed as medians (interquartile ranges) and subsequently compared using the Chi-square test, with significance set at p < 0.05. Continuous variables are presented as medians (ranges) and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test, with significance also set at p < 0.05. Rates of disease-free survival (DFS) up until January 2022 were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier life table method and compared across groups using the log-rank test. Differences with p values < 0.05 were regarded as statistically significant. Univariate and multivariate analysis utilizing Cox proportional hazard ratios were derived for the outcomes of interest. All p values < 0.05 were considered significant in univariate analysis and thus included in multivariate analyses.

Result

Forty-eight (48) patients diagnosed with intractable hemospermia who underwent successful TUSV were studied. All patients achieved remission. Sixteen (16) patients (33.3%) underwent recurrence up until January 2022. The characteristics between recurrence and non- recurrence are shown in Table 1. In TURS findings, twenty two (22) non-recurrent patients (68.8%) experienced overall calculus, while thirteen (13) recurrent patients (86.7%) had overall calculus. Eight (8) non-recurrent patients (25%) had seminal vesicle (SV) or ejaculation duct calculus, while two (2) recurrent patients (13.3%) had SV or ejaculation duct calculus. The median follow-up time was 39.4 months in the non- recurrent group and 49.8 months in the recurrent group. Complications such as epididymitis occurred in only two (2) cases in the non-recurrent group. The median follow-up period was 40.1 months (range, 0.95–134.5 months).

Table 1

Characteristics of patients between recurrence and non-recurrence.

Total (n = 48)	Non-recurrence (n = 32)	Recurrence (n = 16)	p value
Age	54.5 (48.3–63.8)	53.5 (38.3–58.8)	0.330
Duration (months)	12.0 (4.0–23.3)	13.0 (6.0–24.0)	0.676
Diabetes mellitus	2 (6.3%)	1 (6.3%)	1.000
Hypertension	6 (18.8%)	4 (25.0%)	0.712
Previous urinary tract infection	2 (6.3%)	1 (6.3%)	1.000
Urolithiasis history	5 (15.6%)	1 (6.3%)	0.648
Erectile dysfunction	4 (12.5%)	1 (6.3%)	0.652
Sexually transmitted disease	1 (3.1%)	0 (0.0%)	1.000
Anti-platelet agent	2 (6.3%)	3 (20.0%)	0.309
PSA	1.1 (0.6–1.4)	1.0 (0.7–1.7)	0.803
Digital rectal examination
Elastic consistency	32 (100%)	16 (100%)	--
Hard consistency	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	--
TRUS findings
Overall calcification	22 (68.8%)	13 (86.7%)	0.288
Prostate calculus	19 (59.4%)	13 (86.7%)	0.094
SV or ejaculation duct calculus	8 (25.0%)	2 (13.3%)	0.465
Post operative complication
Epididymitis	2 (6.3%)	0 (0.0%)	0.546
Perineal pain	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	--
Follow-up period (months)	39.4 (1.6–66.1)	49.8 (20.9–96.7)	0.120
Time to remission (weeks)	4.0 (3.0–4.0)	4.0 (4.0–7.75)	0.097

Chi-square test or Mann-Whitney U test, Median (IQR). *p<0.05, **p<0.01

Numeric variables expressed as medians (interquartile ranges)

Seminal vesicle (SV).

Intraoperative findings

Intraoperative findings of TUSV between the recurrence and non-recurrence groups are shown in Table 2. Overall calculus was found in the utricle or SV in ten (10) non-recurrent patients (31.3%) and nine (9) recurrent patients (56.3%). Hemorrhage was found in the utricle or SV in eleven (11) non-recurrent patients (34.4%) and ten (10) recurrent patients (62.5%). Mucosal lesion was found in the utricle, SV, urethra or veru montenum in four (4) non-recurrent patients (12.5%) and three (3) recurrent patients (18.8%). A biopsy report showed 1 fibroepithelial polyp, 1 amyloidosis, with the remainder being either congestion or inflammation.

Table 2.

Intraoperative findings of TUSV between recurrence and non-recurrence.

Total (n = 48)	Non-recurrence (n = 32)	Recurrence (n = 16)	p value
Intraoperative findings
Overall calculus	10 (31.3%)	9 (56.3%)	0.175
Utricle	10 (31.3%)	7 (43.8%)	0.594
Left SV	3 (10.0%)	4 (26.7%)	0.199
Right SV	2 (6.9%)	1 (6.3%)	1.000
Hemorrhage or blood clot	11 (34.4%)	10 (62.5%)	0.123
Utricle	2 (6.3%)	0 (0.0%)	0.546
Left SV	6 (20.7%)	7 (46.7%)	0.092
Right SV	4 (14.3%)	5 (31.3%)	0.250
Mucosal lesion	4 (12.5%)	3 (18.8%)	0.672

Chi-square test. *p<0.05, **p<0.01

Seminal vesicle (SV).

Disease free survival

Regarding the TRUS findings, five-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 75.0% in the no calculus group compared to 59.0% in the overall calculus group, with the Kaplan–Meier survival curves represented in Fig 1 (log-rank p = 0.273). The five-year DFS rates were 54.5% in the no SV or ejaculation duct calculus group compared to 100.0% in the SV or ejaculation duct calculus group, with the Kaplan–Meier survival curves represented in Fig 2 (log-rank p = 0.227). In this study, the five-year DFS rates taken from the TRUS findings were insignificantly different.

Fig 1

Kaplan–Meier curves of the disease-free survival rates by TRUS findings of overall calcification.

No calcification compared to overall calcification.

Fig 2

Kaplan–Meier curves of the disease-free survival rates by TRUS findings of SV or ejaculation duct stone.

No seminal vesicle (SV) or ejaculation duct calculus compared to SV or ejaculation duct calculus.

For the intraoperative findings, the five-year DFS rates were 74.1% in the no calculus group compared to 37.1% in the calculus group, with the Kaplan–Meier survival curves represented in Fig 3 (log-rank p = 0.015). The five-year DFS rates were 75.0% in the no hemorrhage or blood clot group compared to 43.2% in the hemorrhage or blood clot group, with the Kaplan–Meier survival curves represented in Fig 4 (log-rank p = 0.032). The five-year DFS rates were 73.7% in the negative intraoperative finding group compared to 47.7% in the positive intraoperative finding group, with the Kaplan–Meier survival curves represented in Fig 5 (log-rank p = 0.093). In this study, the five-year DFS rates were significantly higher in the intraoperative no calculus group when compared to the calculus group, and also much higher in the no hemorrhage or blood clot group when compared to the hemorrhage or blood clot group. The five-year DFS rate was insignificant but trending upward in intraoperative negative findings when compared to positive findings.

Fig 3

Kaplan–Meier curves of the disease-free survival rates by intraoperative findings of calculus.

No calculus compared to overall calculus.

Fig 4

Kaplan–Meier curves of the disease-free survival rates by intraoperative findings of hemorrhage or blood clot.

No hemorrhage or blood clot compared to hemorrhage or blood clot.

Fig 5

Kaplan–Meier curves of the disease-free survival rates by intraoperative findings.

Negative intraoperative finding compared to positive intraoperative finding.

Univariate analysis showed intraoperative calculus (p = 0.040; HR: 2.94, 95% CI: 1.05–8.21) to be significantly associated with recurrence, and intraoperative hemorrhage or blood clot (p = 0.068; HR: 2.63, 95% CI: 0.93–7.43) to be insignificant but trending upward with recurrence. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis showed intraoperative calculus (p = 0.051; HR: 2.80, 95% CI: 1.00–7.90) to be insignificant but trending upward with recurrence.

Discussion

Effectiveness of preoperative imaging

TRUS has been mentioned in other studies as having a lower diagnostic yield for hemospermia [4]. In this study, preoperative TRUS provided a low SV or ejaculatory duct stone detection. TUSV provided better diagnostic rates than a TRUS exam alone. This result is consistent with previous research findings. In this study, TRUS results showed no significant difference in disease-free survival rates. TRUS findings also failed to provide an association with recurrence prediction. Although TRUS is relatively less invasive and carries less cost, the diagnostic significance and benefit of TRUS in patients with persistent hemospermia requires additional follow-up studies.

Recurrence and hypothesis of hemospermia

The recurrence rate after TUSV treatment is mentioned as being in the range of 3.4% to 11.76% [9, 11, 13–16]. Amongst the 48 patients in this study, 16 had recurrent hemospermia, with the recurrence rate being 33.33%, which was higher than other studies. However, the median follow-up time in our study was 40.1 months, while the follow-up time in other studies was 5–24 months [9, 11, 13–16]. Compared with the previous study performed in our hospital, the follow-up time was 12 months, with 4 of 34 patients experiencing recurrence at a rate of 11.76% [9]. Our patients were more regionalized so follow-up at the same hospital was easier. The high recurrence rate may be related to the long follow-up time.

In our study, recurrence-free survival from intraoperative detected stones, hemorrhages, or blood clot was significantly lower when compared with the undetected group. The current hypothesis is that the occurrence of hemospermia, calculus, strictures and inflammation is a vicious cycle [4, 17]. According to that hypothesis, TUSV could interrupt the vicious cycle in addition to providing a diagnosis. For patients with negative intraoperative findings, we believe that TUSV can block the vicious cycle of stricture and inflammation, thus resulting in symptom relief with low recurrence rates. Inflammation may be worse in patients experiencing stones, hemorrhage, or blood clots as detected by TUSV. Fortunately, TUSV can still stop the vicious cycle and relieve symptoms. Because the inflammation is more severe, the possibility of hemospermia recurrence will also increase.

Success rate

The success rate of TUSV treatment, as mentioned in the relevant literature, ranges from 90.9% to 96.53% [9, 11, 15]. In this study fifty one (51) patients underwent TUSV, while 6 of them received second TUSV due to recurrent hemospermia. Among the total 57 TUSV treatments, 54 of which were successfully performed. Such a success rate of 94.7% is comparable with the studies reported in the relevant literature. The 3 patients whose TUSV failed all received MRI exams. It turned out that one of them had a seminal vesicle cyst, while the other 2 patients had small prostate cysts. These structural abnormalities may affect the orientation of the ejaculatory ducts or the location of the seminal vesicles, thereby affecting the success rate of TUSV.

Amongst the 54 successful TUSV cases, only 5 were successfully performed on the unilateral side of SV. Thus, the success rate for both sides of TUSV was 85% (49/57). Upon analysis of these five (5) unilateral TUSV, one (1) patient suffered from recurrence after 71 months, while three (3) patients had symptom remission within 3 or 4 weeks without recurrence. The final one (1) unilateral TUSV underwent a second operation due to recurrence, with bilateral SV successfully entered during this first-time operation. The symptom then subsided in 4 weeks after a second TUSV without recurrence. To the best of our knowledge, there are currently no studies investigating outcomes surrounding unilateral TUSV.

Safety considerations

Perineal pain, retrograde ejaculation, epididymitis, prolonged hematuria, rectal injury and urinary incontinence are known complications of TUSV [9, 18]. Only 2 patients in this study had postoperative complication of epididymitis. After antibiotic treatment, the infection in these 2 patients was eventually controlled and resolved. Some studies have raised concerns that disruption of normal structures by TUSV could lead to infertility [18]. In recent studies, endoscopic treatments including both TUSV and transurethral ejaculation duct resection (TURED) have shown positive results in the treatment of infertility [16, 19–22]. Real-time TRUS-guided TUSV has also been reported as being a safe procedure that helps avoid rectal injury [23]. Therefore, this study provides strong evidence for the safety of TUSV.

Limitations and future prospects

The present study is retrospective and with a rather small sample size. Further prospective studies with more patients involved would provide more convincing reference and therefore stronger evidence. In regard to the confounding variables in this study, we only collected data concerning the cases complicated by the use of anti-platelet agent, diabetes mellitus and hypertension. Residual confounding caused by lifestyles, smoking habits and co-medications were not discussed. Besides the aforementioned limitations, the condition of patients with hemospermia usually improves spontaneously without any aggressive treatment. Furuya et al. reported that the spontaneously resolved rate of hemospermia is as high as 88.9% [24]. It is possible that at the time of analysis, this natural process, i.e. hemospermia being relieved spontaneously, had, to a certain extent, contributed to the excellent remission rate after TUSV as well as complicated the assumed cause-and-effect relationship between TUSV and the remission of hemospermia.

Conclusion

As analyzed and concluded in this present study, intraoperative findings can help assess the risk of recurrent hemospermia. Specifically speaking, stones or blood clots found during TUSV for patients with intractable hemospermia contribute to a higher rate of recurrent hemospermia.

Raw data.

File containing data of TUSV follow-up, TRUS findings, Intraoperative findings and recurrence.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

12 May 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Wen-Wei Sung, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript is well organized, and the topic has good merit to discuss. However, some issues may need to be revised before publication.

1) Minor structural or grammatical errors need to be taken into account, e.g., “Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS), Computed Tomography (CT), and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)” in line 29 should use small letters instead of capital letters. Also, an inconsistent style has been used to present the number of patients, e.g., “Forty-eight (48) patients” in line 74 versus “22 non-recurrent patients” in line 77.

2) The citations at the end of the sentence should always be put before the full stop, e.g., Hemospermia, hematospermia, or haematospermia is defined as blood appearance in the 26 semen [1].

3) Residual confounders such as lifestyle and the influence of comedications were not considered in the current study, which should be addressed in the limitations section.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting manuscript and providing imporatnt information. Ths following are some comments.

1. Recurrent hematospermia is an important problem in clinical practice. The authors include patients with persistent hemospermia and intractable hemospermia, with symptoms persisting over 3 months regardless of medical treatment. Is there any guideline or consensus define the definition of intractable hemospermia.

2. The succussful rate of transurethral seminal vesiculoscopy is very high in this study. Are all patients received complete TUSV? Is there any patient have receive only one side succussful TUSV

3. Intraoperative manifestations, such as Calculus, hemorrhage, mucosal lesion, were recorded. Please provide how many patient have mucosal lesion and the biopsy result.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

3 Jun 2022

REVIEWER 1 COMMENTS:

1. Minor structural or grammatical errors need to be taken into account, e.g., “Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS), Computed Tomography (CT), and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)” in line 29 should use small letters instead of capital letters. Also, an inconsistent style has been used to present the number of patients, e.g., “Forty-eight (48) patients” in line 74 versus “22 non-recurrent patients” in line 77.

• Thank you for your suggestions. We have corrected our manuscript as per your comments.

2. The citations at the end of the sentence should always be put before the full stop, e.g., Hemospermia, hematospermia, or haematospermia is defined as blood appearance in the 26 semen [1].

• Thank you for your suggestion. We have corrected our manuscript as per your comments.

3. Residual confounders such as lifestyle and the influence of comedications were not considered in the current study, which should be addressed in the limitations section.

• You have raised an important issue. We have rewritten the Limitations and future prospects section of the paper (p. 13-14, lines 192-195) to be more in line with your comments.

REVIEWER 2 COMMENTS:

1. Recurrent hematospermia is an important problem in clinical practice. The authors include patients with persistent hemospermia and intractable hemospermia, with symptoms persisting over 3 months regardless of medical treatment. Is there any guideline or consensus define the definition of intractable hemospermia.

• You have raised an important question. We have rewritten the Introduction (p. 3, lines 32-36) to be more in line with your comments.

2. The succussful rate of transurethral seminal vesiculoscopy is very high in this study. Are all patients received complete TUSV? Is there any patient have receive only one side succussful TUSV

• You have raised two important questions. We have rewritten the Success rate section found under the Discussion heading (p. 12-13, lines 171-178) to be more in line with your comments.

3. Intraoperative manifestations, such as Calculus, hemorrhage, mucosal lesion, were recorded. Please provide how many patient have mucosal lesion and the biopsy result.

• Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the result in Table 2(p. 8) and in the Intraoperative findings section (p. 8, lines 95-98). Raw data was added in S1 File.

ETHICS STATEMENT

1. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information

• Thank you for your suggestion. We have rewritten the Patients section found under the Materials and Methods heading (p. 4, lines 55-56) to be more in line with your comment.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

15 Jun 2022

Intraoperative calculus or hemorrhage in transurethral seminal vesiculoscopy as a risk factor for recurrent hemospermia

PONE-D-22-12315R1

Dear Dr. Chuan-Shu Chen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Wen-Wei Sung, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors could answer all questions. No more comments. The manuscript could be accepted and provided important information.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

24 Jun 2022

PONE-D-22-12315R1

Intraoperative calculus or hemorrhage in transurethral seminal vesiculoscopy as a risk factor for recurrent hemospermia

Dear Dr. Chen:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Wen-Wei Sung

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE