Review and Experience of Micro-Surgical Vasostomy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54212/27068048.v9i1.14Keywords:
vasostomy, reversal vasectomy, microsurgical vasostomyAbstract
Objectives: To determine the results of vasovasostomy, characterize the population of male patients who underwent vasectomy, determine the patency rate, and compare it based on time after vasectomy. Methods: Observational, transversal, analytical. Male patients undergoing microsurgical vasovasostomy in the Urology service of the Hospital Civil de Guadalajara "Fray Antonio Alcalde" during the years 2013-2018 were analyzed. Inclusion Criteria: Men who wish to undergo microsurgical vasovasostomy for any reason. (Inflammatory, fertility, pain). Surgical history of vasectomy and that he was treated in the Urology Department of the Hospital Civil de Guadalajara "Fray Antonio Alcalde" who accepted, with informed consent, his inclusion in the study in the period between 2013 – 2018. Results: It shows that 90.2% of the patients have adequate results in the control of the seminograms, obtaining a success rate of approximately 9 out of 10 patients undergoing microsurgical vasovasostomy, with the presence of sperm in semen. Conclusions: In our study, a 90% permeability rate of the vas deferens was recorded, comparable to the worldwide rate, reported in the last meta-analysis and systematic review (6), this sample being the first in Mexico and Latin America, for the group of patients undergoing microsurgical vasovasostomy.
Downloads
References
Weiske WH: Vasectomy. Andrologia 2001; 33; pag. 125-134. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0272.2001.00445.x
Lipsshultz LI: Vasectomy reversal- predicting outcomes. Journal of Urology 2004: 171: 310. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000102200.69922.bf
Kolettis PN, Sabanegh ES, Nalesnik JG, D´amico AM, Box LC, Burns JR : Pregnancy Outcomes after vasectomy reversal for female partners 35 years or older. Journal Urology 2003: 169: 2250-2252. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000063780.74931.d6
Nieschlag E, Behre H, Nieschlag S: Andrology; 3ra Edicion; 2010: p 565 -575. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78355-8
Hinz S, Rais-Bahrami S, Kempkensteffen C, Weiske WH, Shrader M, Magheli A; Fertility Rates following vasectomy reversal: Importance of Age of the female Partner. Journal Urologia Internationalis. 2008; 81,416-420. https://doi.org/10.1159/000167839
Herrel LA, Goodman M, Goldstein M: Outcomes of Microsurgical Vasovasostomy for Vasectomy reversal: a Meta-analysis and Sistematic Review: Infertility. 2014 Journal Urology. 12
Goldstein M. Vasectomy Reversal. 1993, 19: 37-41
Pavlovich CP. Schlegel PN. Fertility options after vasectomy: a cost effectiveness analysis. Fertil Steril 1997;67; 133-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(97)81870-5
Belker, AM, Thomas A, Fuchs EF, Konnak JW and Sharlip ID; Results of 1,469 microsurgical vasectomy reversals by The Vasovasotomy Study Group. Journal Urology, 145, 505, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)38381-7
Grey B, Thompson A, Jenkins LD, Payne SR; UK practice regarding reversal of vasectomy 2001-2010: relevance to best contemporary patient management, Brithish Journal Urology International, 110, 1040-1047. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10853.x
Eisemberg ML, Lipshultz LI, Estimating the number of vasectomies performed in the United States of America: data from the National Survey of Family growth, Journal Urology, 2010, 184, 2068-2072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.06.117
Sandlow JI, Nagler HM, Vasectomy and Vasectomy Reversal; important issues, Preface,Urological Clinical of North America; 2009, 36, 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2009.06.001
Goldstein M, Li PS, Matthews JY, Microsurgical Vasostomy: the microdot technique of precision suture placement. Journal Urology; 1998; 159; 188-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64053-9
Silber SJ, Grotjan HE, Microscopic vasectomy reversal 30 years later: a summary of 4000 cases by the same surgeon . Journal Andrology, 2004; 25, 845-859. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1939-4640.2004.tb03150.x
Patel SR, Sigman M, Comparison of outcomes of vasovasostomy performed in the convoluted and straight vas deferens; Journal Urology, 2008, 179: 256-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.169
Pryor JL, Schow DA. Vasectomy. In: Graham SD, Glenn JF, editors. Glenn’s urologic surgery. 5th edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1998. p. 487–92.
Potts JM, Pasqualotto FF, Nelson D, et al. Patient characteristics associated with vasectomy reversal. Journal of Urology 1999;161(6):1835–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)68819-2
Parekattil SJ, Kuang W, Agarwal A, et al. Model to predict if a vasoepidimostomy will be required for vasectomy reversal. J Urol 2005;173(5):1681–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000154608.08496.f2
Fischer MA, Grantmyre JE. Comparison of modified one- and two-layer microsurgical vasovasostomy. Brithish Journal of Urology International 2000;85(9):1085–8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00668.x
Witt M, Heron S, Lipshultz LI. The postvasectomy length of the testicular vasal remnant: a predictor of surgical outcome in microscopic vasectomy reversal. Journal Urology 1994;151(4):892–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)35115-7
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Antonio Rosales & Saulo Camarena
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
