SEARCH · Search PubMed
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Vasectomy reversals are being requested in increasing numbers. Non-urologists are often the first physicians consulted about such procedures. In some instances, these physicians know very little about the procedures, and the consultation leads to confusion and frustration. In this report, current facts on vasectomy reversals will be provided for the benefit of non-urologists.
Vasectomy remains the safest method of birth control and there is much to commend it in the setting of a stable family relationship. However, some aspects of this operation have been wrongly presented in an attempt to widen its popularity and increase public acceptance. A simple procedure it may be but it is not totally free of complications; sometimes the operation has to be repeated and rarely it may reverse spontaneously even after the most stringent precautions. The family planning officer who counsels a prospective candidate and the surgeon who undertakes the procedure must ensure that these facts are understood by the patient with crystal clarity and that this fact is duly recorded on a signed and witnessed permission slip. Any organization which includes vasectomy in its programme of family planning should include advice and referral for vasectomy reversal in exactly the same way that the pill may be stopped or a coil can be removed. Fertility can be successfully restored by vasovasostomy in 50% of men who wish to have their vasectomies reversed, which often is due to a change in circumstances beyond their direct control.
PURPOSE: The cause of the post-vasectomy pain syndrome is unclear. Some postulated etiologies include epididymal congestion, tender sperm granuloma and/or nerve entrapment at the vasectomy site. To our knowledge nerve proliferation has not been evaluated previously as a cause of pain. Vasectomy reversal is reportedly successful for relieving pain in some patients. We report our experience and correlate histological findings in resected vasal segments with outcome to explain the mechanism of pain in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 13 men who underwent vasectomy reversal for the post-vasectomy pain syndrome. We compared blinded histological evaluations of the vasal ends excised at vasectomy reversal in these patients with those of pain-free controls who underwent vasectomy reversal to reestablish fertility. Controls were matched to patients for the interval since vasectomy. Histological features were graded according to the degree of severity of vasitis nodosum, chronic inflammation and nerve proliferation. RESULTS: Mean time to pain onset after vasectomy was 2 years. Presenting symptoms included testicular pain in 9 cases, epididymal pain in 2, pain at ejaculation in 4 and pain during intercourse in 8. Physical examination demonstrated tender epididymides in 6 men, full epididymides in 6, a tender vasectomy site in 4 and a palpable nodule in 4. No patient had testicular tenderness on palpation. Unilateral and bilateral vasovasostomy was performed in 3 and 10 of the 13 patients, respectively. Postoperatively 9 of the 13 men (69%) became completely pain-free. Mean followup was 1.5 years. We observed no differences in vasectomy site histological features in patients with the post-vasectomy pain syndrome and matched controls, and no difference in histological findings in patients with the post-vasectomy pain syndrome who did and did not become pain-free postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: No histological features aid in identifying a cause of pain or provide prognostic value for subsequent pain relief. Vasectomy reversal appeared to be beneficial for relieving pain in the majority of select patients with the post-vasectomy pain syndrome.
OBJECTIVE: To document a contemporary series of vasectomy reversals performed in men 15 years or more after vasectomy and to correlate the results with spousal age and results of ICSI for obstructive azoospermia. SETTING: University referral center for male infertility. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a single surgeon's experience compared with reported ICSI results. PARTICIPANT(S): One hundred seventy-three men who had vasectomy reversal 15 years or more after vasectomy. INTERVENTION(S): Reversal of vasectomy by vasovasostomy or epididymovasostomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Correlation of pregnancy results after vasectomy reversal with spousal age and published ICSI results. RESULT(S): Pregnancy rates for the intervals of 15-19 years, 20-25 years, and >25 years after vasectomy were 49%, 39%, and 25%, respectively. For spousal age <30 years, 30--35 years, 36-40 years, and >40 years, pregnancy rates were 64%, 49%, 32%, and 28%, respectively. The overall pregnancy rate was 43%, which is similar to the pregnancy rate of 40% for ICSI in obstructive azoospermia. Sixty-two percent of the men required a unilateral or bilateral epididymovasostomy. CONCLUSION(S): Spousal age is an important predictive factor after vasectomy reversal among men who have reversal 15 years or more after vasectomy. Pregnancy rates after vasectomy reversal compare favorably with those obtained with ICSI.
Pregnancy rates after vasectomy reversal vary among different reporting surgeons. To study those patients who are most likely to achieve pregnancy after vasectomy reversal, and to eliminate the effect of variations in surgical technique and operative findings on surgical outcome, the pregnancy rate after vasectomy reversal was calculated in men who achieved completely and consistently normal postoperative semen analyses (sperm concentration 20 x 10(6)/ml. or more and sperm motility 50% or greater). Of 95 patients who met the study criteria 58 (61.1%) achieved pregnancy and 37 (30.9%) did not. Including an allowance for some patients who will achieve pregnancy beyond the study-followup, it is concluded that the maximum pregnancy probability for vasectomy reversal is approximately 67%. Failure to achieve pregnancy in approximately a third of the patients may be explained by partner infertility, epididymal dysfunction and sperm antibodies. Studies that report pregnancy chances in excess of two-thirds must have different patient demographics and/or different methods of statistical analysis.
PURPOSE: The post-vasectomy pain syndrome is a rare but troublesome complication of vasectomy. We report our experience with 32 patients who underwent vasectomy reversal for relief of the post-vasectomy pain syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of 32 patients undergoing vasovasostomy or epididymovasostomy for the post-vasectomy pain syndrome were evaluated for characteristics of symptoms, previous therapy, interval from vasectomy, success of surgery and duration of relief. RESULTS: Of 32 men who underwent vasectomy reversal for the post-vasectomy pain syndrome between 1980 and 1994, 24 had relief of symptoms after the initial procedure. Of 8 men with recurrent pain 6 underwent a second reversal procedure, and 3 of them subsequently had relief of symptoms. Overall, 27 of 32 men had resolution of pain. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience vasectomy reversal has a high rate of success for relief of the post-vasectomy pain syndrome. It does not preclude other forms of surgical therapy and it should be considered in the treatment of the post-vasectomy pain syndrome.
Routine vasectomy reversals are performed easily through scrotal incisions. However, the infrapubic incision offers easiest access to both ends of the vas deferens when the vasectomy has been performed at an unusually high level. Similarly, when unusually long segments of the vas have been removed during the vasectomy, the infrapubic incision enables the surgeon to mobilize a sufficient length of the abdominal end of the vas so that even vasoepididymostomy may be performed without tension on the anastomosis. Technical details of the infrapubic incision, which may be used with local anesthesia, are described.
PURPOSE: More successful methods of vasectomy reversal would benefit those undergoing this treatment and might also increase the popularity of vasectomy. We conducted a randomized, prospective clinical trial of vasectomy reversal methods, comparing a new absorbable stent with 2-layer reattachment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 116 men seeking vasectomy reversal between November 1990 and March 1994. Data were analyzed primarily by intention to treat. RESULTS: Patients in the stent (64 cases) and no stent (52) randomized groups were similar in age distribution, age of spouses, years since vasectomy, proportion who had undergone prior vasectomy reversal and proportion who had previously achieved pregnancy. Operation time was more than 19 minutes shorter in the stent randomized group (p = 0.006). Fewer patients in the stent than the no stent group had patent vasovasostomies (81.0 versus 89.6%, respectively, p = 0.2) postoperatively. Fewer stent randomized patients had motile sperm (76.2 versus 81.3%, respectively, p = 0.5) and normal total motile sperm counts (49.2 versus 52.1%, respectively, p = 0.8) than did those without a stent. Conception occurred in 22 and 51% of all couples in the stent and no stent groups. The relative risk of conception among those in the stent group was 0.42 (95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.71, p = 0.002). A Mantel-Cox log-rank test comparing pregnancies in each group according to the number of postoperative months revealed that the no stent group achieved more earlier pregnancies (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The 2-layer microscopic vasovasostomy results in greater pregnancy rates than vasovasostomy using the absorbable stent.
Fifty-six vasectomy reversals performed during the period 1976 to 1978 have been reviewed with reference to factors which might influence the outcome. Spermatozoa appeared in the ejaculate in 51 (91%) and remained in numbers greater than 10 million per ejaculate in 35 (63%). The wives of 14 men conceived. The following factors have been shown to be associated with a favourable result: a short delay between vasectomy and its reversal, a short previously resected segment, opalescent fluid from the cut lower end of the vas and the absence of circulating antisperm antibodies. A substantially higher conception rate was achieved when the husband had remained with his original partner. Sixty-two testicular biopsies obtained at the time of vasectomy reversal were examined by light microscopy and showed no gross impairment of spermatogenesis. Immunofluorescent techniques failed to show the presence of antigen antibody complexes in 36 testicular biopsies and in 12 vasal stumps.
PURPOSE: Intraoperative sperm banking has been recommended during vasectomy reversal. These specimens are maintained as insurance for possible future intracytoplasmic sperm injection. We evaluated the fate of specimens collected intraoperatively from 48 vasectomy reversal patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 75 men 48 (64.0%) agreed to intraoperative sperm banking during vasectomy reversal. A total of 135 vials of epididymal sperm, 81 vials of testicular tissue and 13 vials of vasal sperm were cryopreserved. RESULTS: Among couples who stored sperm 10 (20.8%) voluntarily discarded the specimens within 4 months of vasectomy reversal. Specimens from 31 couples (64.5%) remain in storage. Seven couples (14.6%) have used frozen sperm for intracytoplasmic sperm injection. In 3 of these couples the men were azoospermic after surgery, 2 men had 10,000 to 15,000 sperm per ml. in the ejaculate with limited motility and 2 had 1 to 2 million sperm per ml. with limited motility. The 7 women who underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection ranged between 37 and 39 years old, which was older than the mean age of the remaining study group (32.7 years). With intracytoplasmic sperm injection fertilization was achieved in all cases and 20 of 47 eggs (42.5%) developed into embryos. Of 7 women 4 achieved biochemical pregnancies (57.1%) and 2 (28.6%) delivered newborns with epididymal sperm. Natural pregnancy occurred in 7 of 16 vasectomy reversal couples (43.7%) who were followed at least 18 months postoperatively but the time to pregnancy averaged 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Cryopreservation of sperm collected at vasectomy reversal is recommended for patients undergoing vasoepididymostomy or vasovasostomy. The couples who used the cryopreserved sperm for intracytoplasmic sperm injection included husbands whose postoperative ejaculate remained azoospermic or severely oligospermic and wives who were approaching 40 years old. Only a limited number of couples (14.6% of the study group) have used the cryopreserved sperm but the delivered newborn rate (28.6%) was comparable to other intracytoplasmic sperm injection data. The natural pregnancy rate after vasectomy reversal was 43.7% but the time to pregnancy after surgery was lengthy (average 1 year). These findings may be helpful for counseling couples who are planning vasectomy reversal surgery and may be considering intraoperative sperm banking.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate seminal oxidative stress in men after vasectomy reversal and to determine whether seminal oxidative stress could predict fertility after vasectomy reversal. DESIGN: Measurement of seminal reactive oxygen species (ROS) and total antioxidant capacity (TAC) in normal donors, men who were fertile after vasectomy reversal, and men who were infertile after vasectomy reversal. SETTING: A male infertility clinic of a tertiary care center. PATIENT(S): Thirty men who underwent vasectomy reversal and 17 normal donors. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Semen characteristics, seminal ROS, and TAC were measured with chemiluminescence assays in samples from donors and reversal patients. RESULT(S): Mean adjusted seminal ROS (log [ROS+1]) was higher in infertile reversal patients (2.38+/-0.25) than in normal donors (1.30+/-0.14). Seminal ROS was also higher in all (fertile and infertile reversal combined) reversal patients than in donors. Total antioxidant capacity did not differ between groups. The ROS-TAC score, a composite index of seminal oxidative stress, was a significant predictor of fertility. A ROS-TAC score of 45 or greater had a positive predictive value of 73% in predicting fertility. CONCLUSION(S): Seminal oxidative stress is associated with vasectomy reversal. The ROS-TAC score is a possible predictor of infertility after vasectomy reversal.
PURPOSE: While vasectomy reversal is a highly successful procedure 10% to 30% of reversals may fail. Despite the general consensus that an epididymal obstruction may occur following a vasectomy and that some men should undergo vasoepididymostomy (VE) rather than vasovasostomy (VV), the practice of many urologists in our region has been to offer only VV for vasectomy reversal. We examined the potential causes for vasectomy reversal failure in patients who had undergone VV without an attempt at VE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who had undergone redo vasectomy reversal from January 1999 to September 2001. A total of 22 patients underwent redo reversal with a minimum followup of 2 years. The medical records of all patients were then reviewed. Patients and partners seen postoperatively in the clinic were questioned regarding any pregnancy or deliveries. RESULTS: We examined 22 patients who had undergone redo vasectomy reversal. Of 22 patients 9 (40.9%) underwent repeat VV, 8 (36.3%) underwent bilateral VE for a presumed unrecognized epididymal obstruction and 5 (22.7%) had a combination of VE and VV. Of the 44 reproductive units studied 23 (52.3%) had a failed vasal anastomosis while 21 (47.7%) had an unrecognized epididymal obstruction. Based on semen analysis patency was observed in 75% of patients who had undergone vasovasostomy as a redo procedure. A patency rate of 60% was found in patients who underwent vasoepididymostomy and vasovasostomy unilaterally, and patency rates for bilateral VE were 63%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that a large proportion of men (48%) have an epididymal obstruction as the etiology for vasectomy reversal failure. We recommend that all surgeons offering vasectomy reversals be able to offer VE if required based on intraoperative findings to serve the patient adequately as well as his partner and their future fertility.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether sperm harvesting and cryopreservation at the time of vasectomy reversal is cost-effective. DESIGN: Model of actual costs and results at five institutions. SETTING: Multicenter study comprising five centers, including university hospitals and private practices. PATIENT(S): Men undergoing vasectomy reversal. INTERVENTION(S): We established two models for vasectomy reversal. The first model was sperm harvesting and cryopreservation at the time of vasectomy reversal. The second model was sperm harvesting at the time of IVF only if the patient remained azoospermic after vasectomy reversal. Vasectomy reversal procedures modeled included bilateral vasovasostomy and bilateral epididymovasostomy. The costs for each procedure at the five institutions were collated and median costs determined. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Median cost of procedure and calculated financial comparisons. RESULT(S): The median cost of testicular sperm extraction/cryopreservation performed at the time of bilateral vasovasostomy was $1,765 (range, $1,025-$2,800). The median cost of microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration or testicular sperm extraction with cryopreservation performed at the time of epididymovasostomy was $1,209 (range, $905-$2,488). The average of the median costs for percutaneous sperm aspiration or testicular sperm aspiration for those patients with a failed vasectomy reversal was $725 (range, $400-$1,455). CONCLUSION(S): Sperm retrieval with cryopreservation at the time of vasectomy reversal is not a cost-effective management strategy.
Despite more than 30 million vasectomies, the ultrastructural features of the epithelium of the vas deferens (VD) of healthy fertile men, as well as the effects of vasectomy at both proximal (testicular) and distal (abdominal) regions of the VD relative to the initial site of incision, have yet to be fully elucidated. In the present study, the VD from 22 fertile men undergoing vasectomy and 7 vasectomized men undergoing vasectomy reversal were examined by light and transmission electron microscopy. In fertile men, aside from cellular organelles involved in endocytosis and merocrine secretion, the epithelial principal cells showed protrusions of their apical cytoplasm between adjacent microvilli, referred to as "apical blebs." The latter contained solely numerous ribosomes/polysomes and few endoplasmic reticulum (ER) cisternae, unlike the presence of lysosomes, lipofuscin granules, mitochondria, and the Golgi apparatus in the apical principal cell cytoplasm, suggesting the segregation of organelles within blebs. Many apical blebs presented a bulbous extremity with a thin stalklike attachment connecting them to the apical principal cell surface, while others appeared to be isolated and well removed from it, suggesting that blebs are capable of detaching and being liberated into the lumen. We hypothesize that apical blebs represent a type of secretion, referred to as "apocrine secretion." In men undergoing vasectomy reversal, the VD proximal (testicular) to the vasectomy site showed a reduction in the size of principal cells and their microvilli and in the number of apical blebs. In contrast, the lumen of the VD distal (abdominal) to the vasectomy site was virtually abolished, with the epithelium reduced to a flattened layer of cells showing a paucity of organelles and no apical blebs, suggesting that these cells become undifferentiated in the absence of seminal fluids. Taken together, these data may explain, in part, the decreased pregnancy rate noted after vasectomy reversal despite a patent anastomosis.
PURPOSE: Some urologists who perform vasectomy reversals are not experienced with performing VE. A model to preoperatively identify patients who may require referral to an experienced VE surgeon was created (). We tested the model at multiple institutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The model had previously been designed in 483 patients who underwent vasectomy reversal at 1 institution (100% sensitive and 59% specific for predicting the need for VE). It was based on time since vasectomy and patient age. We tested it prospectively in 33 patients and retrospectively in a total of 312 at 6 other institutions. The predictive accuracy of the model was compared to using a simple duration from vasectomy cutoff alone, as is used in clinical practice. RESULTS: The model had 84% sensitivity and 58% specificity for detecting the need for VE in a total of 345 patients at 7 institutions. If using only a duration from vasectomy cutoff of 10 years to predict the need for VE, sensitivity was only 69%. At a cutoff of 4 years sensitivity was 99% but specificity was only 23%. Thus, the model performed better than any specific duration cutoff alone. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive model provides 84% sensitivity for detecting patients who may require VE during vasectomy reversal across 7 institutions (58% specificity). The model more accurately predicts the need for VE than using a specific duration from vasectomy cutoff alone.
This prospective study was performed to evaluate the relationship between interleukin-6 (IL-6), oxidative stress and sperm function following vasectomy reversal. We included 22 patients who underwent vasectomy reversal and 15 healthy sperm donors (controls) with normal sperm morphology criteria. Levels of IL-6 in the semen were measured by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and total antioxidant capacity were measured by the chemiluminescence assay. The mean sperm concentration in the vasectomy reversal group was significantly lower than control group (45.3 +/- 39.1 versus 63.1 +/- 28.5; P = 0.02). Motility was also significantly lower in the vasectomy reversal group (32.1 +/- 19.9 versus 54.6 +/- 18.9; P = 001). Levels of IL-6 were significantly higher in the vasectomy reversal group (2.09 +/- 0.87 versus 0.99 +/- 0.97; P = 0.007) as were mean ROS levels (2.25 +/- 0.97 versus 1.2 +/- 0.7; P = 0.009). Significant positive correlation was observed between the IL-6 and ROS levels in vasectomy reversal patients compared with donors (r = 0.41, P = 0.05 versus r = 0.38, P = 0.15). We conclude that patients who undergo vasectomy reversal have elevated levels of IL-6 and ROS, which may contribute to decreased sperm motility and concentration and possibly lead to sub-fertility.
PURPOSE: We characterized microsurgical reconstruction treatment outcomes following a failed vasectomy reversal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 64 repeat vasectomy reversals (52 first and 12 second repeat procedures) performed on 57 men. RESULTS: Of men with absolute azoospermia (initial or complete procedure failures) following vasovasostomy 74% required 1 or more vasoepididymostomies, compared to 24% of men with initially patent vasovasostomies (late failures) (p < 0.001). Crude patency and pregnancy rates were 67 and 30%, respectively, for the entire cohort, 93 and 43%, respectively, for men undergoing vasovasostomy on at least 1 side, and 47 and 15%, respectively, for those undergoing vasoepididymostomy only. Stenosis rates for repeat vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy were 27 and 18%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Complete failure of vasectomy reversal usually is due to unrecognized epididymal obstruction. Late failure following initial patency suggests a compromised anastomosis. Repeat vasectomy reversals result in patency and pregnancy rates somewhat lower than previously reported for unselected vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy. Because stenosis rates are greater following reoperation, intraoperative and postoperative sperm cryopreservation is recommended.
PURPOSE: Although vasectomy reversal surgery is a common procedure for male factor infertility, little is written on the common practice patterns of the practicing urologist. We designed a questionnaire to assess the practice patterns of community and academic urologists with respect to surgical technique, followup care, patient selection and the definition of success. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 20-question survey pertaining to vasectomy reversal surgery was mailed to members of the Western Section, American Urological Association and to members of the Society of Government Service Urologists. Survey results were tabulated in a computer data base and statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1,508 questionnaires were mailed and 622 completed questionnaires were returned. Of the respondents 367 (59%) indicated that they perform vasectomy reversals, including 29 (8%) who were fellowship trained in infertility, 86 (23%) who were affiliated with residency training and 252 (69%) who practiced in a community setting. As expected, on average fellowship trained urologists performed more reversals yearly than academic or community urologists (26.4, 12.2 and 7, respectively). Patient selection criteria varied. Of fellowship trained urologists 12.5% would elect not to operate if it were greater than 15 years since vasectomy compared with 41.9% for academic and 57.1% of community urologists. Just more than half (50.2%) of respondents indicated they did not recommend routine gynecologic evaluation of the patient partner. When comparing fellowship, academic and community practitioners, an operating microscope was used in 93%, 65% and 56% of procedures (p <0.001), and vasal fluid was examined in 83%, 75% and 67%, respectively. Fellowship trained urologists also used finer suture material (p <0.001). An average of 8 anastomotic sutures were placed in 2 layers but significant differences existed between fellowship trained urologists, and their academic and community counterparts. Most urologists (71%) defined their success by the presence of sperm in the ejaculate. Only 10.9% of urologists recommended sperm cryopreservation at surgery and 90% recommended postoperative sexual abstinence (average 3 weeks). All urologists recommended postoperative semen analysis done at an average of 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of vasectomy reversal varies among urologists. Differences in surgical technique, postoperative care and selection criteria exist. Knowledge of these variations may assist practicing urologists to tailor their practice patterns in the selection for and performance of vasectomy reversal.