Presence of Sperm in the Pre-Vasectomy Reversal Semen Analysis: Incidence and Implications

A novel laboratory procedure to validate American Urological Association guideline on vasectomy success and to diagnose obstructive azoospermia

The objective was to develop a laboratory procedure to validate American Urological Association (AUA) Guideline on vasectomy success when nonmotile spermatozoa are found in the post-vasectomy ejaculate. The neutral α-glucosidase (NAG) an epididymal protein assay modified to determine the activity at 30 and 90 min of incubation from 24 pre- and 47 post-vasectomy ejaculates. The difference between the two points in the relative activity was calculated and if the difference was nonsignificant will confirm vasectomy success. The mean differences in the relative NAG activity were significantly different in pre- and post-vasectomy ejaculates, respectively. The mean differences in the relative NAG activity were similar in post-vasectomy ejaculates with and without nonmotile spermatozoa. No difference in relative NAG activity in post-vasectomy ejaculates between two time points of incubation may be a reliable method to confirm occlusion of the vas deferens. It also validates the recommendation by AUA Guideline on vasectomy success in the presence of few nonmotile spermatozoa.

Surgical treatment for male infertility

Given the nature of the multiple causes of male infertility, some of them are «reversible» and can be managed with a surgical procedure to recover, in some cases, the fertilizing capacity of the male reproductive tract. With appropriate use of diagnostic tools and clinical judgement, the physician can identify the ideal candidates for these procedures. Together with the expertise and experience of the surgeon, these treatments can manage to resolve the barrier, and men may become fertile again. In this chapter, we will review some of the most commonly used surgical procedures for the treatment of male infertility and make a brief description of their technical details.

Impact of the 2012 American Urological Association vasectomy guidelines on post-vasectomy outcomes

PURPOSE

The 2012 American Urological Association (AUA) vasectomy guidelines recommend the finding of rare nonmotile sperm, representing 100,000 or fewer nonmotile sperm per ml, as a metric of post-vasectomy success. At our institution success was previously defined as 2 sequential azoospermic centrifuged semen pellets. The criteria change of including rare nonmotile sperm as a success end point may simplify post-vasectomy followup and decrease the number of post-vasectomy semen analyses required to assure occlusive success.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the context of the new 2012 guidelines we retrospectively reviewed and analyzed the records of 972 of the 1,740 vasectomies (55.9%) performed between January 2000 and June 2012 after which at least 1 post-vasectomy semen analysis was done.

RESULTS

A total of 1,919 post-vasectomy semen analyses were obtained from 972 patients with a mean ± SE age of 39.7 ± 0.2 years. Occlusive success was evident in 337 azoospermic men (36.4%), while 514 (52.9%) underwent 2 or more post-vasectomy semen analyses and 458 (47.1%) returned for a single post-vasectomy semen analysis but were lost to followup. Of these noncompliant patients 76.0% were azoospermic, 19.7% had rare nonmotile sperm, 1.5% had greater than 100,000 nonmotile sperm per ml and 2.8% had motile sperm. Three patients underwent repeat vasectomy for persistent rare nonmotile sperm. If the criteria defined by the 2012 guidelines had been used to monitor these men, the occlusive success rate would have improved to 97.6% (949 patients) (p <0.05). Repeat vasectomies as well as 896 subsequent post-vasectomy semen analyses would have been avoided.

CONCLUSIONS

The AUA vasectomy guidelines provide clear, evidence-based criteria for vasectomy success. The guidelines simplify followup protocols, improve patient compliance and help avoid unnecessary post-vasectomy semen analyses and repeat vasectomies.

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.

Clearance after vasectomy: has the time come to modify the current practice?

OBJECTIVE

Vasectomy is a simple, reliable and effective form of permanent contraception. Clearance after vasectomy has been the subject of much debate among urologists. Poor compliance with postvasectomy semen analysis is well recognized, with rates as low as 36%. This can leave the partner at risk of an unplanned pregnancy and, consequently, the surgeon at risk of litigation. Although there is no consensus about the requirements for postvasectomy clearance, urologists usually tend to request at least two azoospermic postvasectomy semen samples (PVSSs) before labelling patients as sterile. This study investigated whether simplifying the criteria for postvasectomy clearance can result in improved compliance.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for studies on postvasectomy clearance. The main focus of the search was on the timing and number of PVSSs, their impact on patients' compliance and the significance of the rare non-motile sperm (RNMS).

RESULTS

It has been found that patients' compliance decreases when more than one PVSS is requested. One azoospermic PVSS can be as indicative of sterility as two azoospermic samples. There have been calls for a uniform protocol recommending only one routine sperm sample taken 16 weeks postoperatively. This period will allow the vasa and seminal vesicles to become clear of spermatozoa. A significant proportion of men will have RNMS in their semen after vasectomy; only 1% will ultimately fail. Therefore, RNMS samples can, for practical purposes, be considered azoospermic and one PVSS, even if containing RNMS, should be considered sufficient for clearance.

CONCLUSIONS

Provided that patients are adequately warned about the risk of vasectomy failure and appropriate consent is obtained, a single azoospermic PVSS at 16 weeks is sufficient for clearance. Patients with RNMS should be practically considered azoospermic and further sampling should be abandoned. This approach should improve patients' compliance. Evaluation in a prospective setting will be required to validate this conclusion.

Effectiveness of vasectomy techniques

The effectiveness of various vasectomy techniques is reviewed, with a focus on methods used for vas occlusion. Spontaneous recanalization of the vas is more common than generally recognized and is often transient. Simple ligation and excision has an unacceptably high risk for failure. Techniques that include cautery seem to have a lower risk for failure than techniques that do not include cautery. There is insufficient evidence to recommend a particular standardized cautery technique, but adding fascial interposition to cautery seems to be associated with the lowest risk for failure.

An implantable ligation device that achieves male sterilization without cutting the vas deferens

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the Vasclip implant procedure would (a) be equivalent to vasectomy in producing azoospermia, (b) produce greater patient satisfaction postoperatively, and (c) result in lower complication rates, postoperative pain, hematoma formation, spermatic granuloma, and surgical site infection when compared with historical controls.

METHODS

Sterilization and complications were studied in 124 consecutive patients.

RESULTS

Successful sterilization, defined by azoospermia at 10 to 14 months, was observed in 116 of 119 subjects. The effectiveness seemed to be equivalent to that of vasectomy. The incidence of postoperative pain and hematoma formation was similar to that with standard methods. The Vasclip procedure had similar infection rates and seemed to have lower rates of sperm granuloma when compared with vasectomy. In 3 subjects with persistent presence of sperm, histologic examination after traditional vasectomy indicated that misalignment of the device led to partial vas incision with recanalization. Patient acceptability was high: of the clinical study patients, 99% of survey respondents would recommend that other men considering a vasectomy have the Vasclip procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The Vasclip implant procedure represents a new, effective, office-based alternative to vasectomy. Physicians' benefits can include reduced procedural time and reduction of postprocedural complications. Potential patients' benefits include reduced risk of postoperative infection and sperm granuloma formation.

Vasectomy by ligation and excision, with or without fascial interposition: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN77781689]

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials comparing different vasectomy occlusion techniques are lacking. Thus, this multicenter randomized trial was conducted to compare the probability of the success of ligation and excision vasectomy with, versus without, fascial interposition (i.e. placing a layer of the vas sheath between two cut ends of the vas).

METHODS

The trial was conducted between December 1999 and June 2002 with a single planned interim analysis. Men requesting vasectomies at eight outpatient clinics in seven countries in North America, Latin America, and Asia were included in the study. The men were randomized to receive vasectomy with versus without fascial interposition. All surgeons performed the vasectomies using the no-scalpel approach to the vas. Participants had a semen analysis two weeks after vasectomy and then every four weeks up to 34 weeks. The primary outcome measure was time to azoospermia. Additional outcome measures were time to severe oligozoospermia (<100 000 sperm/mL) and vasectomy failure based on semen analyses.

RESULTS

We halted recruitment after the planned interim analysis, when 841 men had been enrolled. Fascial interposition decreased time to azoospermia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.35; P < 0.0001) and time to severe oligozoospermia (HR, 1.32; P < 0.0001) and reduced failures based on semen analysis by about half, from 12.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.7 to 16.3) to 5.9% (95% CI, 3.8 to 8.6) (P < 0.0001). Older men benefited less from fascial interposition than younger men in terms of the speed of achieving azoospermia. However, the number of vasectomy failures was reduced to a similar degree in all age groups. Slightly more adverse events occurred in the fascial interposition group, but the difference was not significant. These failure rates may appear high to practitioners in countries such as the USA, but they are similar to results from other careful studies of ligation and excision techniques.

CONCLUSION

Fascial interposition significantly improves vasectomy success when ligation and excision is the method of vas occlusion. A limitation of this study is that the correlation between postvasectomy sperm concentrations and risk of pregnancy is not well quantified.

Vasectomy

Vasectomy is regarded as the safest method now available for male fertility control. Almost 100 million men worldwide have relied on vasectomy for family planning. This review discusses all currently relevant operative techniques, including no-scalpel vasectomy, complications, possible long-term effects on the testis and epididymis, and diseases for which associations with vasectomy have been suggested, such as arteriosclerosis, autoimmune diseases and cancer of the prostate and testis. Other topics of discussion include the timing of post-operative semen analysis, patient noncompliance concerning post-operative controls, persistent cryptozoospermia and transient reappearance of spermatozoa after vasectomy, vasectomy failure and legal aspects.

Review of current practice to establish success after vasectomy

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to examine the criteria used by surgeons in a district general hospital to confirm success following vasectomy, to establish the proportion of men undergoing vasectomy in whom the procedure was unsuccessful according to those criteria, and to evaluate their subsequent management.

METHODS

All 15 surgeons performing vasectomy indicated that they required two consecutive azoospermic postvasectomy semen specimens before they advised couples that the vasectomy was successful. Results of postvasectomy semen analysis (PVSA) for all 240 primary vasectomies performed over a 12-month interval were analysed. Minimum follow-up was 30 (range 30-42; median 37) months.

RESULTS

At follow-up 72 men (30 per cent) had not returned postvasectomy samples that fulfilled the criteria, including 18 who were azoospermic on the first PVSA 3 months after vasectomy but who failed to produce a second specimen. In 24 men (10 per cent) who failed to comply with the PVSA protocol, there was no documentation of any further action being taken. No pregnancies were reported in the partners of the study group during this interval and only one patient underwent repeat vasectomy.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that the strict requirement of two consecutive azoospermic postvasectomy semen specimens may be unjustified, leads to a high level of non-compliance and causes unnecessary delay in confirming success of the procedure.

Cellular responses to vasectomy

A number of cell populations in the reproductive tract show a response to vasectomy. Some cell types show similar responses in man and all laboratory species, whereas others show marked species variations. This chapter describes these effects in a broadly chronological order and, in a general way, considers changes close to the site of vasectomy first and the longer term effects on the testis itself later. Following vasectomy, epididymal distension and sperm granuloma formation result from raised intraluminal pressure. The sperm granuloma is a dynamic structure and a site of much spermatozoal phagocytosis by its macrophage population. In many species, spermatozoa in the obstructed ducts are destroyed by intraluminal macrophages, and degradation products, rather than whole sperm, are absorbed by the epididymal epithelium. Humoral immunity against spermatozoal antigens following vasectomy is well established and there is evidence of modest T-lymphocyte activity. The role of lymphocytes in the reproductive tract epithelium and interstitium following vasectomy is poorly defined. In laboratory animals, there is evidence that pressure-mediated damage to the seminiferous epithelium can follow sperm granuloma formation and obstruction in the epididymal head. However, the contribution of lymphocytes and antisperm antibodies to testicular damage after vasectomy is far from clear. A number of studies have suggested that testicular changes may follow vasectomy in man but their validity and mechanism of occurrence require further study.

Semen analysis after vasectomy: when and how many?

OBJECTIVE

To assess patient compliance for semen analysis after vasectomy, and to determine the timing and number of semen analyses required to confirm sterility.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included 1321 men who underwent vasectomy between October 1995 and June 1998. They were followed up in two groups; in group 1 (one-test method) 961 consecutive patients were asked to provide a semen sample for analysis 4 months after vasectomy. Sterility was defined as the absence of sperm in one sample. If sperm were present in the sample, the test was repeated at monthly intervals until there were no sperm. In group 2 (two-test method) 360 consecutive patients were advised to provide semen samples 3 and 4 months after vasectomy. The absence of sperm in two consecutive samples was defined as the criterion to declare the man azoospermic. The presence of sperm in one sample required further samples every month until two consecutive azoospermic samples were produced.

RESULTS

In group 1, 810 patients provided semen samples, of which 783 (97%) had no sperm and the men were thus declared azoospermic. The remaining 27 (3%) samples contained sperm; six men withdrew from follow-up at various times but 21 patients produced a negative sample at some time within 7 months and were declared azoospermic. At the end of the follow-up, 804 (84%) patients had been declared azoospermic. In group 2, 294 (82%) patients provided a semen sample after 3 months but only 259 (72%) did so after 4 months. Of the patients providing the first sample, 287 (98%) were azoospermic, and after the second 252 (97%) were azoospermic. At the end of the follow-up 255 (71%) patients were declared azoospermic. There was no reported paternity in any of the men.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that compliance was better in group 1; when the patients in group 2 were asked to provide a second sample the compliance decreased significantly. The percentage of patients producing an azoospermic sample was similar for semen provided after 3 and 4 months. Thus, provided that the patient is adequately warned about the risk of failure of the vasectomy at any time during his life, a single semen analysis after 3 months is sufficient grounds for discontinuing other contraceptive precautions.

Safety and effectiveness of vasectomy

OBJECTIVE

To recommend further research on vasectomy based on a systematic review of the effectiveness and safety of vasectomy.

DESIGN

A systematic MEDLINE review of the literature on the safety and effectiveness of vasectomy between 1964 and 1998.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Early failure rates are <1%; however, effectiveness and complications vary with experience of surgeons and surgical technique. Early complications, including hematoma, infection, sperm granulomas, epididymitis-orchitis, and congestive epididymitis, occur in 1%-6% of men undergoing vasectomy. Incidence of epididymal pain is poorly documented. Animal and human data indicate that vasectomy does not increase atherosclerosis and that increases in circulating immune complexes after vasectomy are transient in men with vasectomies. The weight of the evidence regarding prostate and testicular cancer suggests that men with vasectomy are not at increased risk of these cancers.

CONCLUSION(S)

Publications to date continue to support the conclusion that vasectomy is a highly effective form of contraception. Future studies should include evaluations of the long-term effectiveness of vasectomy, evaluating criteria for postvasectomy discontinuation of alternative contraception for use in settings where semen analysis is not practical, and characterizing complications including chronic epididymal pain syndrome.

Sperm pellet analysis: a technique to detect the presence of sperm in men considered to have azoospermia by routine semen analysis

PURPOSE

In men considered to have azoospermia by routine semen analyses sperm may be identified after centrifuging the semen. Because these sperm may be used for intracytoplasmic sperm injection, we describe our technique and findings of sperm pelleting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Semen centrifugation for sperm pellet analysis was performed in 140 consecutive men in whom no sperm was identified on routine semen analysis and who were categorized as having obstructive or nonobstructive azoospermia. Obstructive azoospermia was defined as failed vasectomy reversal, failed reconstruction for congenital vasal or epididymal occlusion, or an acquired obstruction unrelated to ejaculatory duct obstruction. Patients with congenital absence of the vas deferens or who had undergone vasectomy were not included in the study. Nonobstructive azoospermia was defined as moderate to severe testicular atrophy with markedly elevated serum follicle-stimulating hormone (greater than 3 times normal), or a testicular biopsy that revealed maturational arrest, severe hypospermatogenesis or the Sertoli-cell-only pattern. Obstructive and nonobstructive azoospermia were present in 70 men who provided 109 samples and 70 who provided 103, respectively.

RESULTS

Motile and nonmotile sperm was identified in 13 of the 70 patients (18.6%) with obstructive and in 16 of the 70 (22.8%) with nonobstructive azoospermia. Pellet variability, that is the absence of sperm in 1 specimen and its presence in another from the same patient, was noted in 7 of the 17 men (41.2%) with obstructive and 2 of the 17 (11.8%) with nonobstructive azoospermia (not statistically significant). Motile sperm was present in the pellets of 6 of the 70 men (8.6%) with obstructive and 15 of the 70 (21.4%) with nonobstructive azoospermia. The median number of motile sperm was lower in the obstructive than in the nonobstructive group (0 sperm in 17 samples versus 5 sperm in 41 samples, p <0.001). The median value of 0 in the obstructive azoospermia group reflects the finding that 9 of the 17 samples did not contain motile sperm. Similarly the median number of nonmotile sperm was lower in the obstructive than in the nonobstructive group (5 versus 8 sperm).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated the presence of motile and nonmotile sperm in a significant number of men considered to have azoospermia by routine semen analysis. Semen centrifugation (sperm pelleting) should be performed in all men considered to have this condition by routine semen analysis, especially those with testicular failure and those in whom intracytoplasmic sperm injection is possible.