Increased Follicle-Stimulating Hormone is Associated With Higher Assisted Reproduction Use After Vasectomy Reversal

Preoperative Predictors for the Presence of Motile Spermatozoa in the Epididymis and Patency of Anastomosis during Microsurgical Vasoepididymal Anastomosis in Patients with Obstructive Azoospermia

Background

Following microsurgical vaso-epididymal anastomosis (VEA), anastomotic patency with sperm returning to the ejaculate is not always present and may even be delayed. The presence of motile spermatozoa is highly suggestive of future patency following surgery.

Aims

We prospectively analyse the factors that could predict motile spermatozoa at the epididymis intraoperatively and predictors of patency in patients with obstructive azoospermia (OA) undergoing microsurgical VEA.

Settings and Design

Department of Urology of a tertiary care centre in Northern India. It is a prospective observational study.

Materials and Methods

Over a 2-year period (July 2019 to June 2021), 26 patients with idiopathic OA were enrolled in the study. Twenty patients underwent microsurgical VEA. Patients were divided into two groups based on the presence/absence of intraoperative motile spermatozoa.

Statistical Analysis Used

Analysis of preoperative and intraoperative factors was done using the Mann-Whitney U-test, Chi-squared test and Fischer exact test.

Results

Out of 20 patients, 5 (group 2) had intraoperative motile spermatozoa in the epididymal fluid and 15 (group 1) had nonmotile spermatozoa. Low luteinising hormone (LH) levels (P = 0.01) and high testosterone levels (P = 0.05) were the predictive of presence of motile spermatozoa in epididymal fluid. Mean follow-up was 9 months (6-18 months). Predictors of higher patency were grade 2 epididymis (firm, turgid and tense) (P = 0.003), low LH levels (P = 0.03), low sertoli cell index (P = 0.006), high sperm-Sertoli index (P = 0.002) and better surgeon satisfaction (P = 0.01).

Conclusion

Low LH levels and high testosterone levels may be predictive of the presence of motile spermatozoa in epididymal fluid. Firm, turgid and tense epididymis, low Sertoli cell index, high sperm-Sertoli index and surgeon satisfaction suggest a greater chance of success after VEA for idiopathic azoospermia.

European Countries have different rates of sperm cryopreservation before vasectomy and at the time of reversal

INTRODUCTION

Effective male contraceptive options are condoms and vasectomy. Vasectomy should not be considered as a reversible method of contraception even if vasovasostomy can be offered to men to restore fertility after vasectomy. Therefore, there is a real questioning among urologist concerning cryopreservation before vasectomy. We carried out an international survey concerning the practice of cryopreservation before vasectomy and during vasovasostomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An online anonymous survey was submitted from January to June 2021 to 6 European urological societies. The 31-items questionnaire included questions about demography, habits of cryopreservation before vasectomy or during vasectomy reversal and in case of urogenital cancers.

RESULTS

228 urologists from six urological societies in five different countries (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Finland) answered the questionnaire. French urologists were more in favor of cryopreservation before vasectomy than other European urologists (p<0,0001). They also significantly found that not talking about cryopreservation before vasectomy is a medical fault unlike other urologists (p<0,0001). The specialization in andrology did not influence the choice of cryopreservation before vasectomy (p = 0,9452). The majority of urologists did not perform intraoperative sperm extraction during vasovasostomy (81%; n = 127) with a significant difference between urologists with or without andrology training (p = 0,0146). Success rates after vasovasostomy are significantly better for robot-assisted surgery (p = 0.0159) or with microscope (p = 0.0456) versus without microscope.

CONCLUSION

Cryopreservation before definitive sterilization significantly varies among European urologists and seems to be mostly dictated by habits than by knowledge. An international consensus is needed to standardize practices and guide patient's choice. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: indications, operative technique, and outcomes

The basic principles of vasal reconstruction have endured since their initial description over a century ago, yet the nuances and technical approaches have evolved. Prior to performing vasectomy reversal, the clinician should perform a focused history, physical and laboratory assessment, all of which are critical for patient counseling and preoperative planning. Operative success is contingent on appropriate intraoperative decision making and technical precision in completing a tension-free, watertight, and patent anastomosis. Outcomes of vasectomy reversal differ on the basis of the type of reconstruction required, reconstructive technique, and patient-specific factors. Here we review the indications, surgical techniques, and outcomes of vasectomy reversal.

Vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: Review of the procedures, outcomes, and predictors of patency and pregnancy over the last decade

BACKGROUND

In the era of improving assisted reproductive technology (ART), patients with obstructive azoospermia (OA) have 2 options: vasal repair or testicular sperm extraction with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Vasal repair, including vasovasostomy (VV) and vasoepididymostomy (VE), is the only option that leads to natural conception.

METHODS

This article reviews the surgical techniques, outcomes, and predictors of postoperative patency and pregnancy, with a focus on articles that have reported over the last 10 years, using PubMed database searches.

MAIN FINDINGS

The reported mean patency rate was 87% and the mean pregnancy rate was 49% for a patient following microscopic VV and/or VE for vasectomy reversal. Recently, robot-assisted techniques were introduced and have achieved a high rate of success. The predictors and predictive models of postoperative patency and pregnancy also have been reported. The obstructive interval, presence of a granuloma, and intraoperative sperm findings predict postoperative patency. These factors also predict postoperative fertility. In addition, the female partner's age and the same female partner correlate with pregnancy after surgery.

CONCLUSION

In the era of ART, the physician should present and discuss with both the patient with OA and his partner the most appropriate procedure to conceive by using these predictors.

Vasectomy reversal: A review of the evaluation, techniques, and outcomes

This review highlights the evaluation and treatment of men who have undergone vasectomy and desire vasectomy reversal to father children. For surgeons offering this treatment, the appropriate evaluation and treatment are crucial for acceptable outcomes. Although variations on surgical approaches have evolved over the years, one constant is the need for a high level of training and skill in microsurgical techniques.

Review of Azoospermia

Azoospermia is classified as obstructive azoospermia (OA) or non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA), each having very different etiologies and treatments. The etiology, diagnosis, and management of azoospermia were reviewed and relevant literature summarized. Differentiation between these two etiologies is of paramount importance and is contingent upon thorough history and physical examination and indicated laboratory/genetic testing. OA occurs secondary to obstruction of the male reproductive tract, and is diagnosed through a combination of history/physical examination, laboratory testing, genetics (CFTR for congenital OA), and imaging studies. NOA (which includes primary testicular failure and secondary testicular failure) is differentiated from OA by clinical assessment (testis consistency/volume), laboratory testing (FSH), and genetic testing (karyotype, Y chromosome microdeletion, or specific genetic testing for hypogonadotropic hypogonadism). For obstructive azoospermia, management includes microsurgical reconstruction when feasible using microsurgical vasovasostomy or vasoepididymostomy. Microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration with in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) is utilized for those cases not amenable to reconstruction. NOA management includes medical management for congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism and microdissection testicular sperm extraction with IVF/ICSI for appropriate candidates based on laboratory/genetic testing. Overall, this important review provides an updated summary of the most recent available literature describing etiology, diagnosis, and management of azoospermia.

Microsurgical vasovasostomy

Up to 6% of men who have undergone vasectomy will ultimately elect for reversal in the form of vasovasostomy or vasoepididymostomy for various reasons. Vasovasostomy performed to regain fertility is a technique that has undergone numerous advances during the last century, including the use of microsurgical equipment and principles to construct a meticulous anastomosis. It is important during vasovasostomy to ensure good blood supply to the anastomosis as well as to build as a tension-free anastomosis. Visual inspection to ensure healthy mucosa and inner muscularis as well as atraumatic handling of tissues is helpful. With vasovasostomy, it is essential to create a watertight anastomosis to prevent secondary scar formation. The microdot technique of vasovasostomy allows for markedly discrepant lumens to be brought together more precisely. Thereby, the planning is separated from suture placement, which prevents dog-ears and avoids subsequent leaks. In the age of in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), it becomes even more important to clarify outcomes after vasectomy reversals, as patients now have a choice between surgical sperm retrieval coupled with IVF/ICSI versus vasectomy reversal. Little data on long-term outcomes for vasectomy reversals exist. Therefore, further research in this field needs to evaluate the rate of late failures and the predictors of late failures.

UK practice regarding reversal of vasectomy 2001-2010: relevance to best contemporary patient management

Study Type - Practice trends (survey) Level of Evidence 2c What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Approximately 6% of men who have had a vasectomy subsequently decide to have it reversed. For such men there are various options available, including vasal reconstruction, surgical sperm retrieval with assisted reproductive techniques, use of donated sperm or adoption. The decision-making process with regard to the most appropriate management is challenging and the urologist requires both an intimate knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the available options and the opportunity to counsel a couple appropriately. The study confirms that patient management after previous vasectomy is a complex process, demanding detailed knowledge about the availability and outcomes of alternatives to vasectomy reversal. It recommends that couples should not be seen by urologists with diverse interests but by those with appropriate knowledge of all of the factors influencing outcome and the available management options and their costs. Urologists should also have appropriate facilities to offer intra-operative demonstration of and, potentially, storage of sperm.

OBJECTIVES

To review the management of men presenting for reversal of vasectomy amongst consultant members of the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) between 2001 and 2010. • To make recommendations for contemporary practice.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Three consecutive questionnaire-based surveys were undertaken by BAUS consultant members in 2001, 2005 and 2010. • Standard questionnaires were sent on each occasion asking urologists about their counselling of couples regarding options in achieving a conception, expectation of outcome from reconstructive surgery and the techniques of vaso-vasostomy used. • In 2005 additional information was obtained about the availability of fertility treatments and sub-specialization of the urologist and in 2010 about the eligibility criteria for in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment and synchronous sperm retrieval.

RESULTS

Overall there was a 47% response rate with >80% of respondents still performing vaso-vasostomy. • More than 75% of respondents were doing <15 procedures a year and <50% of respondents counselled couples about other management options. • Only 41% gave their personalized outcomes from vaso-vasostomy, whilst >80% were using some form of magnification intra-operatively. • Members of the BAUS section of andrology were more likely to discuss options for becoming a parent and criteria for IVF treatment, to present their individualized outcomes from vaso-vasotomy and to carry out >15 procedures a year than urologists with no andrological affiliation.

CONCLUSIONS

• Patient management after previous vasectomy is a complex process necessitating detailed knowledge concerning the availability and outcomes of alternatives to vaso-vasostomy. • Couples should not be seen by urologists with diverse interests but by those with appropriate knowledge of all of the factors influencing outcome. • Vaso-vasostomy should no longer be seen as a procedure within the remit of any adequately trained urologist but as one option to be considered by a sub-specialist with access to appropriate micro-surgical training and assisted reproductive technologies.