A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE NO SCALPEL AND STANDARD INCISION APPROACHES TO VASECTOMY IN 5 COUNTRIES

[Recommendations of the Committee of Andrology and Sexual Medicine of the AFU concerning the management of Vasectomy]

OBJECTIVES

To answer the main clinical questions asked by practitioners and men consulting for a vasectomy request.

METHOD

The CPR method was used. The clinical questions were formulated according to the PICO methodology. A Pubmed literature search for the period 1984-2021 identified 508 references, of which 79 were selected and analyzed with the GRADE grid.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Vasectomy is a permanent, potentially reversible contraception. It is a safe procedure. A second vasectomy is necessary in only 1 % of cases. Surgical complications (hematoma, infection, pain, etc.) are rare. The frequency of prolonged scrotal pain after vasectomy is about 5 %, and less than 2 % describe a negative impact of this pain on their quality of life. Vasectomy does not have negative consequences on sexuality. The only contraindication to vasectomy is the minor patient. Patients at increased risk of remorse are single, divorced or separated men under the age of 30. Sperm storage may be particularly appropriate for them. Whatever the reason, the law allows the surgeon to refuse to perform the vasectomy. He must inform the patient of this at the first consultation. The choice of the type of anesthesia is left to the discretion of the surgeon and the patient. It must be decided during the preoperative consultation. Local anesthesia should be considered first. General anesthesia should be particularly considered in cases of anxiety or intense sensitivity of the patient to palpation of the vas deferens, difficulty palpating the vas deferens, or a history of scrotal surgery that would make the procedure more complex. Concerning the vasectomy technique, 2 points seem to improve the efficiency of the vasectomy: coagulation of the deferential mucosa and interposition of fascia. Leaving the proximal end of the vas deferens free seems to reduce the risk of post-vasectomy syndrome without increasing the risk of failure or complications. No-scalpel vasectomy is associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications than conventional vasectomy. Regarding follow-up, it is recommended to perform a spermogram at 3 months post-vasectomy and after 30 ejaculations. If there are still a few non-motile spermatozoa at 3 months, it is recommended that a check-up be performed at 6 months post-vasectomy. In case of motile spermatozoa or more than 100,000 immobile spermatozoa/mL at 6 months (defining failure), a new vasectomy should be considered. Contraception must be maintained until the effectiveness of the vasectomy is confirmed.

Incidence of Post-Vasectomy Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to ascertain incidences of post-vasectomy pain following traditional scalpel, or non-scalpel vasectomy. Electronic databases PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO were searched up to 1 July 2019 for peer-reviewed articles recording post-vasectomy pain. We identified 733 publications, screened 559 after removal of duplicates and excluded 533. Of the remaining 26 full-text articles, 8 were excluded with reasons, leaving 18 for detailed analyses. Meta-analysis was performed on 25 separate datasets (11 scalpel, 11 non-scalpel, 3 other/combined). Study follow-up ranged from 2 weeks to 37 years and sample sizes from 12 to 723 patients. The overall incidence of post-vasectomy pain was 15% (95% CI 9% to 25%). The incidences of post-vasectomy pain following scalpel and non-scalpel techniques were 24% (95% CI 15% to 36%) and 7% (95% CI 4% to 13%), respectively. Post-vasectomy pain syndrome occurred in 5% (95% CI 3% to 8%) of subjects, with similar estimates for both techniques. We conclude that the overall incidence of post-vasectomy pain is greater than previously reported, with three-fold higher rates of pain following traditional scalpel, compared to non-scalpel vasectomy, whereas the incidence of post-vasectomy pain syndrome is similar.

Are evidence-based vasectomy surgical techniques performed in low-resource countries?

Background:  Research evidence published 10 to 15 years ago has shown that the type of vasectomy surgical technique performed can influence the effectiveness and the safety of the procedure.  The objective of this study was to determine if evidence-based vasectomy surgical techniques are integrated in the vasectomy programs of selected low-resource countries. Methods: The surgical techniques recommended to perform the two steps of the vasectomy procedure (isolation/exposition and occlusion of the vas deferens) were extracted from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Documents describing male sterilisation standards and practice from Kenya, Rwanda, India, Nepal, Mexico, Honduras, Colombia and Haiti were reviewed to assess adequacy with international guideline recommendations. Results: Best recommended techniques are 1) a minimally invasive technique including the no-scalpel technique (known as the no-scalpel vasectomy (NSV)) to isolate and expose the vas deferens, and 2) cautery of the mucosa of the vas preferably combined with interposition of the fascia (FI) to occlude the vas deferens. The NSV is largely adopted and performed to isolate the vas in selected low-resources countries. Ligation and excision (LE) of a small segment of the vas deferens combined with FI is the most common vas occlusion technique mentioned in the country standards. Cautery as recommended in the guidelines is seldom used in selected countries. Conclusions:   Effective and adapted vasectomy vas occlusion techniques are available, but are still underused in many low-resource countries. Providing the most effective vasectomy surgical techniques increases users' confidence and satisfaction regarding male sterilization and may lead to higher acceptability and uptake.

Are evidence-based vasectomy surgical techniques performed in low-resource countries?

Background:  Research evidence published 10 to 15 years ago has shown that the type of vasectomy surgical technique performed can influence the effectiveness and the safety of the procedure.  The objective of this study was to determine if evidence-based vasectomy surgical techniques are integrated in the vasectomy programs of selected low-resource countries. Methods: The surgical techniques recommended to perform the two steps of the vasectomy procedure (isolation/exposition and occlusion of the vas deferens) were extracted from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Documents describing male sterilisation standards and practice from Kenya, Rwanda, India, Nepal, Mexico, Honduras, Colombia and Haiti were reviewed to assess adequacy with international guideline recommendations. Results: Best recommended techniques are 1) a minimally invasive technique including the no-scalpel technique (known as the no-scalpel vasectomy (NSV)) to isolate and expose the vas deferens, and 2) cautery of the mucosa of the vas preferably combined with interposition of the fascia (FI) to occlude the vas deferens. The NSV is largely adopted and performed to isolate the vas in selected low-resources countries. Ligation and excision (LE) of a small segment of the vas deferens combined with FI is the most common vas occlusion technique mentioned in the country standards. Cautery as recommended in the guidelines is seldom used in selected countries. Conclusions:   Effective and adapted vasectomy vas occlusion techniques are available, but are still underused in many low-resource countries. Providing the most effective vasectomy surgical techniques increases users' confidence and satisfaction regarding male sterilization and may lead to higher acceptability and uptake.

Scalpel versus no-scalpel incision for vasectomy

BACKGROUND

Currently, the two most common surgical techniques for approaching the vas during vasectomy are the incisional method and the no-scalpel technique. Whereas the conventional incisional technique involves the use of a scalpel to make one or two incisions, the no-scalpel technique uses a sharp-pointed, forceps-like instrument to puncture the skin. The no-scalpel technique aims to reduce adverse events, especially bleeding, bruising, hematoma, infection and pain and to shorten the operating time.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of the incisional versus no-scalpel approach to the vas.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2014, we searched the computerized databases of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, POPLINE and LILACS. We looked for recent clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Previous searches also included in EMBASE. For the initial review, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials were included in this review. No language restrictions were placed on the reporting of the trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed all titles and abstracts located in the literature searches and two authors independently extracted data from the articles identified for inclusion. Outcome measures included safety, acceptability, operating time, contraceptive efficacy, and discontinuation. We calculated Peto odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the dichotomous variables.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials evaluated the no-scalpel technique and differed in their findings. The larger trial demonstrated less perioperative bleeding (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.89) and pain during surgery (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93), scrotal pain (OR 0.63; 95% 0.50 to 0.80), and incisional infection (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.78) during follow up than the standard incisional group. Both studies found less hematoma with the no-scalpel technique (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.36). Operations using the no-scalpel approach were faster and had a quicker resumption of sexual activity. The smaller study did not find these differences; however, the study could have failed to detect differences due to a small sample size as well as a high loss to follow up. Neither trial found differences in vasectomy effectiveness between the two approaches to the vas.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The no-scalpel approach to the vas resulted in less bleeding, hematoma, infection, and pain as well as a shorter operation time than the traditional incision technique. No difference in effectiveness was found between the two approaches.

Short-term morbidity following No-Scalpel Vasectomy: an assessment of clients' perceptions by novel postcard system

OBJECTIVE

Data on short-term (within a week) morbidity of No-Scalpel Vasectomy (NSV) is lacking. We studied clients' perceptions of early post-vasectomy morbidity by self innovated postcard pictorial questionnaire.

METHODS

Between March 2011 and April 2012, 821 men underwent NSV and provided pre-printed revalidated pictorial postcards depicting various grades of severity of local pain, swelling, and bleeding. Clients were asked to tick mark their problems and post them on the third day after NSV. Data were compiled and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Completed postcards were returned by 702 clients (85.5%). 25 postcards were excluded due to illegitimate filling of card. About 80.8% of clients complained of pain and minimal, moderate and severe pain was experienced by 77.69%, 18.09% and 4.20%, respectively. 16.24% of clients observed local swelling, which was minimal in 90.9%, moderate and severe in 7.27% and 1.81% of cases. 2.95% of clients noted mild bloody discharge. Most of clients managed their problems by following the instructions given in postcards; level 1 and 2 morbidity did not affect their daily activity.

CONCLUSION

Early morbidity after NSV is usually mild in severity and easily manageable. The postcard system is a feasible, effective, and economical way of collecting data and managing short-term post NSV problems.

Surveillance of surgical site infection post vasectomy

The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) after vasectomy and to identify associated patient and perioperative risk factors, including the operating room environment (non-ventilated treatment room or ventilated operating theatre). This study used an active 30-day surveillance follow-up programme with telephone interviews and home visits. Patients were recruited over an 18 month period. Demographics, patient details and perioperative procedures were documented on the day of surgery. Patients were telephoned 10 and 30 days post procedure. Of 1,155 patients enrolled, 994 (86%) completed the full 30-day follow-up. Of these, 25 (2.5%) developed an SSI. The mean number of days until presentation with an SSI was 13. No statistically significant difference was found in rates of SSI when vasectomies were undertaken in either ventilated operating theatres or non-ventilated treatment rooms.

Vasectomy: AUA guideline

PURPOSE

The purpose of this guideline is to provide guidance to clinicians who offer vasectomy services.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature using the search dates January 1949-August 2011 was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to vasectomy. The search identified almost 2,000 titles and abstracts. Application of inclusion/exclusion criteria yielded an evidence base of 275 articles. Evidence-based practices for vasectomy were defined when evidence was available. When evidence was insufficient or absent, expert opinion-based practices were defined by Panel consensus. The Panel sought to define the minimum and necessary concepts for pre-vasectomy counseling; optimum methods for anesthesia, vas isolation, vas occlusion and post-vasectomy follow up; and rates of complications of vasectomy. This guideline was peer reviewed by 55 independent experts during the guideline development process.

RESULTS

Vas isolation should be performed using a minimally-invasive vasectomy technique such as the no-scalpel vasectomy technique. Vas occlusion should be performed by any one of four techniques that are associated with occlusive failure rates consistently below 1%. These are mucosal cautery of both ends of the divided vas without ligation or clips (1) with or (2) without fascial interposition; (3) open testicular end of the divided vas with MC of abdominal end with FI and without ligation or clips; and (4) non-divisional extended electrocautery. Patients may stop using other methods of contraception when one uncentrifuged fresh semen specimen shows azoospermia or ≤ 100,000 non-motile sperm/mL.

CONCLUSIONS

Vasectomy should be considered for permanent contraception much more frequently than is the current practice in the U.S. and many other nations. The full text of this guideline is available to the public at http://www.auanet.org/content/media/vasectomy.pdf.

[Ischemic testicular necrosis following vasectomy: rare and typical complications of an outpatient procedure]

Taking the clinical case of a patient who developed unilateral testicular necrosis following vasectomy as a starting point, the early and late complications of this procedure are described based on a literature review.In the USA 7% of all men undergo vasectomy, as compared to 2% in Germany. Early postoperative complications include bleeding/hematoma (0.5-18%), infection (0.3-32.9%), epididymitis (0.4-6.1%), granuloma (0.07-90%), and rare complications such as vas deferens abscess, vesicular gland abscess, vasovenous fistula, testicular necrosis, arteriovenous fistula, pulmonary embolism, endocarditis, scrotal skin necrosis and Fournier's disease which mostly have been reported in the form of case reports. Late complications are chronic pain (0.5-18%), pain during sex (2.9%), hydrocele (0-4%) as well as spermatocele (1.6%). There is a failure rate of 4.3-16% as concluded from the number of patients with nonmotile sperm in the post-vasectomy semen analysis. The postoperative paternity rate is 0-4%.Bilateral vasectomy is a secure way of contraception; perioperative and late complications are on an average rare, however, with a range up to 90%. In individual cases severe complications occur, which should be detected at an early stage. Therefore a close follow-up should be maintained after this outpatient procedure. One should ask for risk factors of endocarditis or thrombosis preoperatively. The patient should be informed of the possible loss of a testicle because of the severity of this complication. Postoperative semen analysis is obligatory.

Vasectomy: the other (better) form of sterilization

Male sterilization (vasectomy) is the most effective form and only long-acting form of contraception available to men in the United States. Compared to female sterilization, it is more efficacious, more cost-effective, and has lower rates of complications. Despite these advantages, in the United States, vasectomy is utilized at less than half the rate of female sterilization. In addition, vasectomy is least utilized among black and Latino populations, groups with the highest rates of female sterilization. This review provides an overview of vasectomy use and techniques, and explores reasons for the disparity in vasectomy utilization in the United States.

Male contraception: Past, present and future

Male contraception research has yielded a number of promising leads over the past 50 years. Yet, little is known by the public due to lack of institutional support and funding. This is unfortunate since, apart from condom and vasectomy, there are many male methods which may be safer, more effective and easier to use. This paper explores male contraception which has been used in the past and the present and discusses some of its potential developments.

The incidence of chronic scrotal pain after vasectomy: a prospective audit

OBJECTIVE

To assess the extent of scrotal pain in men before and after vasectomy, to produce accurate data for the benefit of men considering this procedure, and hence improved informed consent about the outcomes, as chronic scrotal pain after vasectomy is a poorly quantified clinical problem.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between November 2004 and January 2006 nine surgeons carried out vasectomies in 625 men (mean age 39.9 years, sd 5.6) under local anaesthesia. A questionnaire was devised to establish the presence of any scrotal or testicular pain, and to characterize this discomfort; 6 months after the procedure a modified version of the same questionnaire was administered.

RESULTS

In all, 593 (94.7%) men returned the preoperative questionnaires and were entered into the study; 488 (82.2%) of these completed the follow-up questionnaire, giving a mean (sd) follow-up of 6.8 (1.6) months. In all, 65 men reported new-onset scrotal pain at 7 months (14.7%). The mean visual analogue score for this pain was 3.4/10. Four men (0.9%) in the responding group described pain after vasectomy as 'quite severe and noticeably affecting their quality of life'.

CONCLUSION

At 7 months after vasectomy about 15% of previously asymptomatic men have some degree of scrotal discomfort. These early data indicate that chronic scrotal pain after vasectomy is a genuine entity, but a longer-term follow-up in this group will be important to allow further evaluation of how this pain develops with time.

Scalpel versus no-scalpel incision for vasectomy

BACKGROUND

Currently, the two most common surgical techniques for approaching the vas during vasectomy are the incisional method and the no-scalpel technique. Whereas the conventional incisional technique involves the use of a scalpel to make one or two incisions, the no-scalpel technique uses a sharp-pointed, forceps-like instrument to puncture the skin. The no-scalpel technique aims to reduce adverse events, especially bleeding, bruising, hematoma, infection and pain and to shorten the operating time.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of the incisional versus no-scalpel approach to the vas.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the computerized databases of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE and LILACS in May 2006. In addition, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials were included in this review. No language restrictions were placed on the reporting of the trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed all titles and abstracts located in the literature searches and two authors independently extracted data from the articles identified for inclusion. Outcome measures included safety, acceptability, operating time, contraceptive efficacy, and discontinuation.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials evaluated the no-scalpel technique and differed in their findings. The larger trial demonstrated less perioperative bleeding (Odds ratio (OR) 0.49; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.89) and pain during surgery (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93), scrotal pain (OR 0.63; 95% 0.50 to 0.80), and incisional infection (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.78) during follow up than the standard incisional group. Both studies found less hematoma with the no-scalpel technique (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.36). Operations using the no-scalpel approach were faster and had a quicker resumption of sexual activity. The smaller study did not find these differences; however, the study could have failed to detect differences due to a small sample size as well as a high loss to follow up. Neither trial found differences in vasectomy effectiveness between the two approaches to the vas.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The no-scalpel approach to the vas resulted in less bleeding, hematoma, infection, and pain as well as a shorter operation time than the traditional incision technique. No difference in effectiveness was found between the two approaches.

Scalpel versus no-scalpel incision for vasectomy

BACKGROUND

Currently, the two most common surgical techniques for approaching the vas during vasectomy are the incisional method and the no-scalpel technique. Whereas the conventional incisional technique involves the use of a scalpel to make one or two incisions, the no-scalpel technique uses a sharp-pointed, forceps-like instrument to puncture the skin. The no-scalpel technique aims to reduce adverse events, especially bleeding, bruising, hematoma, infection and pain and to shorten the operating time.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of the incisional versus no-scalpel vasectomy approach to the vas.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the computerized databases of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE and LILACS in May 2006. In addition, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials were included in this review. No language restrictions were placed on the reporting of the trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed all titles and abstracts located in the literature searches and two authors independently extracted data from the articles identified for inclusion. Outcome measures included safety, acceptability, operating time, contraceptive efficacy, and discontinuation.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials evaluated the no-scalpel technique and differed in their findings. The larger trial demonstrated less perioperative bleeding (Odds ratio (OR) 0.49; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.89) and pain during surgery (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93), scrotal pain (OR 0.63; 95% 0.50 to 0.80), and incisional infection (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.78) during follow up than the standard incisional group. Both studies found less hematoma with the no-scalpel technique (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.36). Operations using the no-scalpel approach were faster and had a quicker resumption of sexual activity. The smaller study did not find these differences; however, the study could have failed to detect differences due to a small sample size as well as a high loss to follow up. Neither trial found differences in vasectomy effectiveness between the two approaches to the vas.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The no-scalpel approach to the vas resulted in less bleeding, hematoma, infection, and pain as well as a shorter operation time than the traditional incision technique. Although no difference in effectiveness was found between the two approaches, the sample sizes might have been too small to detect actual differences. Additional well-conducted randomized trials would help answer this question.

[Male and female sterilization techniques: Summary of ANAES assessments (May 2005)]

OBJECTIVE

To summarize assessments carried out by ANAES on male and female sterilization techniques. The summary was requested by the French Health Directorate after the law authorizing sterilization as a means of contraception was passed.

RESULTS (FEMALE STERILIZATION)

(i) EFFICACY of tubal ligation, electrocoagulation, clips or rings: the annual pregnancy rate is 0-2% depending on the study, with no significant difference between techniques. No data were found on fimbriectomy. (ii) EFFICACY of a hysteroscopically placed micro-insert device: no pregnancies were observed in patients with bilateral tube obstruction diagnosed by hysterosalpingography at 3 or at 6 months after placement (placement rate: 87-89%). (iii) SAFETY of tubal ligation, electrocoagulation, clips or rings: (a) By approach: There was no difference in the incidence of major complications between laparoscopy and minilaparotomy but there were significantly fewer minor complications with laparoscopy than with minilaparotomy. There were significantly more major complications with culdoscopy than with minilaparotomy and significantly more minor complications than with laparoscopy. (b) By operative technique: major and minor complications were significantly more common with the Pomeroy technique than with electrocoagulation; the difference could be due to the approach used. No data were available on fimbriectomy. (iv) SAFETY of a hysteroscopically placed micro-insert device: there were 11 cases of myometrial or tubal perforation among 734 patients (with device displacement into the peritoneal cavity in 3 cases).

RESULTS (MALE STERILIZATION)

(i)

EFFICACY

efficacy varied from 84% to 100% depending on the approach and the mode of vas deferens obstruction. There was no significant difference in efficacy according to approach (transcutaneous or scrotal). However, no conclusion could be drawn on the comparative efficacy of the occlusion techniques used from published data. (ii)

SAFETY

the rate of postoperative complications was low, below 10% in most series. Complications were benign and only rarely necessitated surgical revision.

CONCLUSION

The advantage of sterilization methods is that they lack any permanent contraindication. They should be presented as being generally irreversible. Fimbriectomy is not recommended for female sterilization. Laparoscopy is the preferred approach. Sterilization by hysteroscopic placement of a micro-insert device should be restricted to cases presenting a risk on laparoscopy; the technique should be re-assessed in 2006. The two approaches used for male sterilization are technically similar and do not seem to differ in efficacy. The Public Health Code states that "Fallopian tube or deferens duct ligation for contraceptive purposes is not allowed in minors" and that ligation "cannot be performed unless the adult involved has given his/her informed and motivated consent, expressed after taking into consideration clear, complete information on the consequences of the procedure". A waiting period of four months must follow the moment the decision to sterilize is taken and consent is given. An informed consent form must be signed. Sterilization in young or nulliparous women should be proposed with the greatest prudence and with many reservations.

A phase II randomized controlled trial of a novel male contraception, an intra-vas device

The aim of this study was to introduce a novel male contraceptive method, an intra-vas device (IVD), and to assess the efficacy, safety and satisfaction of recipients compared with no-scalpel vasectomy (NSV). A phase II randomized controlled trial was conducted in China in 2003. Two hundred and eighty-eight male subjects seeking vasectomy were randomly assigned to the IVD or NSV group. Follow up included a telephone questionnaire on the 14th postoperative day and visits at the third and 12th postoperative months. The follow-up rates at the three time points were 100%, 100% and 96.5% respectively. There was no technical failure in any subject. The surgical conditions were similar in both groups, but the IVD group experienced an additional 5 min of operative time (p<0.001). The IVD group recovered normal activity and sexual intercourse more rapidly (both p<0.05). The azoospermia rate was lower in the IVD group than in the NSV group at the third and 12th postoperative months. The rate of contraceptive success based on semen analyses was similar in both groups, especially at the 12th postoperative month (94.3% in the IVD group vs. 98.6% in the NSV group; p=0.054). The IVD group had less risk of complications (i.e. pain, congestive epididymitis and sperm granuloma). More subjects reported satisfaction with IVD sterilization than with NSV. The two procedures were similar in terms of surgical complications. The IVD was slightly less effective, but had a lower risk of later adverse events than the NSV technique. The IVD group also reported a higher level of satisfaction.

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 follow-up: Clinical significance of rare nonmotile sperm in postoperative semen analysis

OBJECTIVES

To examine patient compliance, complications, and significance of rare nonmotile sperm (RNMS) after no-scalpel vasectomy.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of 690 consecutive men who had undergone vasectomy at our institution between 1996 and 2002. All men were instructed to submit two initial semen samples for analysis (3 and 4 months after vasectomy) and additional samples (at 2-month intervals) if sperm were identified on the initial and subsequent analyses. All patient complaints (telephone and clinic visit) were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 315 men (45.6%) did not submit any semen samples. Of the 295 men who submitted two samples, 176 (60%) were azoospermic, 110 (37%) had RNMS, and 9 men (3%) had rare motile sperm (the vasectomy of 1 of these 9 men subsequently failed). Of the 110 men with RNMS, 83 submitted one or more additional semen samples. Of these 83 men, 62 (75%) had become azoospermic, 20 (24%) had persistent RNMS, and 1 (1%) subsequently had a failed vasectomy (with motile sperm). The 2 patients with failure underwent a repeat vasectomy (failure rate 0.67% [2 of 295]). A total of 69 patients (10%) reported a complaint, but only 9 (1.5%) of these men returned for clinical examination. No surgical complications and no pregnancies occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that despite aggressive counseling, compliance with follow-up testing is very poor. Patient-reported complaints are common but minor. We found that most men with RNMS become azoospermic and propose that the presence of RNMS is consistent with a successful vasectomy. However, long-term, prospective studies are needed to assess the risk of late failure in men with RNMS.

Vasectomy surgical techniques: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

A wide variety of surgical techniques are used to perform vasectomy. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess if any surgical techniques to isolate or occlude the vas are associated with better outcomes in terms of occlusive and contraceptive effectiveness, and complications.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (1966-June 2003), EMBASE (1980-June 2003), reference lists of retrieved articles, urology textbooks, and our own files looking for studies comparing two or more vasectomy surgical techniques and reporting on effectiveness and complications. From 2,058 titles or abstracts, two independent reviewers identified 224 as potentially relevant. Full reports of 219 articles were retrieved and final selection was made by the same two independent reviewers using the same criteria as for the initial selection. Discrepancies were resolved by involving a third reviewer. Data were extracted and methodological quality of selected studies was assessed by two independent reviewers. Studies were divided in broad categories (isolation, occlusion, and combined isolation and occlusion techniques) and sub-categories of specific surgical techniques performed. Qualitative analyses and syntheses were done.

RESULTS

Of 31 comparative studies (37 articles), only four were randomized clinical trials, most studies were observational and retrospective. Overall methodological quality was low. From nine studies on vas isolation, there is good evidence that the no-scalpel vasectomy approach decreases the risk of surgical complications, namely hematoma/bleeding and infection, compared with incisional techniques. Five comparative studies including one high quality randomized clinical trial provided good evidence that fascial interposition (FI) increases the occlusive effectiveness of ligation and excision. Results of 11 comparative studies suggest that FI with cautery of the vas lumen provides the highest level of occlusive effectiveness, even when leaving the testicular end open. Otherwise, firm evidence to support any occlusion technique in terms of increased effectiveness or decreased risk of complications is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence supports no-scalpel vasectomy as the safest surgical approach to isolate the vas when performing vasectomy. Adding FI increases effectiveness beyond ligation and excision alone. Occlusive effectiveness appears to be further improved by combining FI with cautery. Methodologically sound prospective controlled studies should be conducted to evaluate specific occlusion techniques further.

A prospective study of time and number of ejaculations to azoospermia after vasectomy by ligation and excision

PURPOSE

We obtained detailed information on the time and number of ejaculations to azoospermia after vasectomy by ligation and excision.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Men seeking vasectomy at 3 public clinics in Mexico City were invited to participate in this prospective noncomparative study. Vasectomy was performed using the no-scalpel technique. The vas was occluded using 2 silk sutures and the segment of vas between the ligatures was excised. Men were followed biweekly up to 24 weeks after vasectomy or until azoospermia was confirmed. Semen was examined at each visit for sperm concentration and motility. The main outcome measure was azoospermia in uncentrifuged semen samples.

RESULTS

The life table rate for time to azoospermia was 81.5/100 men (95% CI 76.2 to 86.9) by the end of the study. Cumulative Kaplan-Meier event probability attained a maximum of 79.5/100 men (95% CI 73.7 to 85.2) at 70 ejaculations. Only 60/100 and 27.9/100 men were azoospermic by 12 weeks and 20 ejaculations, respectively. These end points are the commonly recommended waiting periods when semen analysis is unavailable. Of the 217 men 36 (16.6%) did not achieve azoospermia by 24 weeks, of whom 25 (11.5% of all participants) were considered to have vasectomy failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that it is not possible to develop guidelines for clearance based only on the time or number of ejaculations when ligation and excision are performed. In addition, of the methods for vas occlusion during vasectomy ligation and excision may not provide the best success rates.

Effectiveness and complications associated with 2 vasectomy occlusion techniques

PURPOSE

We compared the effectiveness and complications associated with 2 common vasectomy occlusion techniques, namely clipping and excision of a small vas segment and thermal cautery with fascial interposition and an open testicular end.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the computerized records of 3,761 men who underwent initial vasectomy at a single university hospital family planning clinic and at 2 private clinics in the Quebec City, Canada area, including concurrent and historical controls. All procedures were performed by 1 surgeon, who used the scalpel-free technique to expose the vas.

RESULTS

The risk of vas occlusion failure in men with at least 1 semen analysis was much greater in the clipping and excision group than in the cautery, interposition and open testicular end group (126 of 1,453 or 8.7% versus 3 of 1,165 or 0.3%, OR 37, 95% CI 12 to 116). Medical consultations for hematoma or infection were more frequent in the cautery group (28 of 1,721 cases or 1.6% versus 10 of 2,040 or 0.5%, OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.6 to 6.9). Consultations for noninfectious pain were similar for the 2 techniques (71 of 1,721 cases or 4.1% versus 72 of 2,040 or 3.5%, OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Cautery and interposition with an open testicular end are much more effective than clipping and excision. The effectiveness and morbidity associated with the components of the cautery, interposition and open testicular end technique need further evaluation.

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.

Population-based outcomes after 28,246 in-hospital vasectomies and 1,902 vasovasostomies in Western Australia

OBJECTIVES

To examine trends in vasectomy and vasovasostomy, and the surgical complications and factors associated with reversal after vasectomy, and paternity after vasovasostomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Procedure rates were estimated from 1980 to 1996 in the population of Western Australia. Linked hospital morbidity records were used in the follow-up of men after vasectomy to estimate the risks of complications and reversals. Records of vasovasostomies were linked to the paternity field on birth registrations. Independent effects of the study factors were examined using Cox regression.

RESULTS

There was little net change in vasectomy rates, whereas vasovasostomy rates increased in men aged 30-49 years. Risks of surgical complications were low and decreased for vasovasostomy. At 12-15 years after vasectomy, the risk of reversal levelled at 2. 4% in the total cohort and at 11.1% in men aged 20-24 years. The risk of vasovasostomy was 69% greater after vasectomy performed in 1994-96 than in 1980-84 (P = 0.011). The factors strongly associated with reversal were age < 30 years and being single, divorced or separated at the time of vasectomy. Paternity was achieved after an estimated 53% of vasovasostomies. Successful reversal was more likely if the man was younger at vasectomy and the time elapsed was comparatively short. Compared with vasovasostomies performed in 1980-84, the success rate of those in 1994-96 was almost four times higher.

CONCLUSION

Population rates of vasectomy are stable but the risk of seeking a reversal has increased. Outcomes after vasovasostomy have improved. Care should be taken during the counselling of men before vasectomy, and especially in those aged <30 years.