Temporary reappearance of sperm 12 months after vasectomy clearance

Male contraception development: monitoring effective spermatogenesis suppression utilizing a user-controlled sperm concentration test compared with standard semen analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a user-controlled sperm concentration test compared with standard semen analysis can effectively monitor spermatogenesis suppression for male contraception.

DESIGN

Single center, prospective sub study of the ongoing clinical trial: "Study of daily application of Nestorone and testosterone combination gel for male contraception."

SETTING

Research institute at an academic medical center.

PARTICIPANT(S)

Couples participating in the male contraceptive clinical trial.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The ability by participants to monitor sperm suppression to a threshold compatible with contraceptive efficacy utilizing a user-controlled test verified by sperm concentration determined by standard laboratory methods.

RESULT(S)

Thirty-eight men participating in a hormonal male contraceptive clinical trial provided multiple samples during spermatogenesis suppression for this substudy. Participants, employing a user-controlled test, correctly identified the absence of sperm (a negative test) in 100% of their laboratory-confirmed azoospermic samples (n = 122). Participants also identified 100% of samples (n = 73) with sperm >0.2 million/mL as positive. Sperm counts between 0.01 and 0.2 million/mL were identified as negative in 96% of samples. Trial participants noted the overall ease of using the test with respect to sample preparation, test timing, and result interpretation, and that they could accurately use this test at home without difficulty.

CONCLUSION(S)

Participants undergoing spermatogenesis suppression in a hormonal male contraceptive trial performed user-controlled test to determine whether their semen sperm concentration was ≤ or >0.2 million/mL. Compared with standard semen analyses, participants correctly identified 100% of samples with sperm counts >0.2 million/mL as positive (Sensitivity 100%). A positive result when the couple is using a male contraceptive method triggers the need for semen analysis by a laboratory while the couple uses another method of contraception. Participants correctly diagnosed samples ≤0.2 million sperm/mL as negative in 99% of samples (specificity 99%). A negative result indicates a sperm concentration ≤0.2 million/mL, well below the threshold of ≤1 million/mL offering contraceptive efficacy demonstrated by prior studies. At-home sperm concentration test would minimize the need for users to return to the clinic to monitor suppression of spermatogenesis, decreasing cost and burden of male contraception trials and increasing practicality of the method.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT: 03452111.

Effect of ductus deferens lavage on the time to achieve azoospermia in patients undergoing vasectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of normal saline lavage of the distal vas deferens ampulla in patients undergoing vasectomy on the time to achieve azoospermia.

METHODS

A prospective randomized study of 60 men divided into two groups, group lavage (GL, n=30) in which distal vas deferens ampulla lavage was performed with 10 ml of normal saline during the vasectomy, and group without lavage (GWL, n=30) in which control patients received only a vasectomy. The patients provided sperm for semen analysis at the 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th and 25th ejaculations.

RESULTS

Fifteen participants in GL and 16 in GWL, for a total of 31 patients, were excluded due to not completing the control spermiogram. The tests carried out at the five ejaculations showed immobile spermatozoa in 40 and 85.71%, 66.67 and 78.57%, 93.33 and 85.71%, 86.67 and 71.43%, and 93.33 and 85.71% of participants in GL and GWL, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Vas deferens duct lavage with 10 ml of normal saline during vasectomy did not decrease the time required to achieve postoperative azoospermia.

[European Association of Urology guidelines on vasectomy]

CONTEXT

The European Association of Urology presents its guidelines for vasectomy. Vasectomy is highly effective, but problems can arise that are related to insufficient preoperative patient information, the surgical procedure, and postoperative follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

These guidelines aim to provide information and recommendations for physicians who perform vasectomies and to promote the provision of adequate information to the patient before the operation to prevent unrealistic expectations and legal procedures.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

An extensive review of the literature was carried out using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1980 to 2010. The focus was on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs (level 1 evidence) and on well-designed studies without randomisation (level 2 and 3 evidence). A total of 113 unique records were identified for consideration. Non-English language publications were excluded as well as studies published as abstracts only or reports from meetings.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The guidelines discuss indications and contraindications for vasectomy, preoperative patient information and counselling, surgical techniques, postoperative care and subsequent semen analysis, and complications and late consequences.

CONCLUSIONS

Vasectomy is intended to be a permanent form of contraception. There are no absolute contraindications for vasectomy. Relative contraindications may be the absence of children, age <30 yr, severe illness, no current relationship, and scrotal pain. Preoperative counselling should include alternative methods of contraception, complication and failure rates, and the need for postoperative semen analysis. Informed consent should be obtained before the operation. Although the use of mucosal cautery and fascial interposition have been shown to reduce early failure compared to simple ligation and excision of a small vas segment, no robust data show that a particular vasectomy technique is superior in terms of prevention of late recanalisation and spontaneous pregnancy after vasectomy. After semen analysis, clearance can be given in case of documented azoospermia and in case of rare nonmotile spermatozoa in the ejaculate at least 3 mo after the procedure.

European Association of Urology guidelines on vasectomy

CONTEXT

The European Association of Urology presents its guidelines for vasectomy. Vasectomy is highly effective, but problems can arise that are related to insufficient preoperative patient information, the surgical procedure, and postoperative follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

These guidelines aim to provide information and recommendations for physicians who perform vasectomies and to promote the provision of adequate information to the patient before the operation to prevent unrealistic expectations and legal procedures.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

An extensive review of the literature was carried out using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1980 to 2010. The focus was on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs (level 1 evidence) and on well-designed studies without randomisation (level 2 and 3 evidence). A total of 113 unique records were identified for consideration. Non-English language publications were excluded as well as studies published as abstracts only or reports from meetings.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The guidelines discuss indications and contraindications for vasectomy, preoperative patient information and counselling, surgical techniques, postoperative care and subsequent semen analysis, and complications and late consequences.

CONCLUSIONS

Vasectomy is intended to be a permanent form of contraception. There are no absolute contraindications for vasectomy. Relative contraindications may be the absence of children, age <30 yr, severe illness, no current relationship, and scrotal pain. Preoperative counselling should include alternative methods of contraception, complication and failure rates, and the need for postoperative semen analysis. Informed consent should be obtained before the operation. Although the use of mucosal cautery and fascial interposition have been shown to reduce early failure compared to simple ligation and excision of a small vas segment, no robust data show that a particular vasectomy technique is superior in terms of prevention of late recanalisation and spontaneous pregnancy after vasectomy. After semen analysis, clearance can be given in case of documented azoospermia and in case of rare nonmotile spermatozoa in the ejaculate at least 3 mo after the procedure.

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.

Outcome of vasectomies performed at a Turkish metropolitan maternity hospital

OBJECTIVE

To determine prospectively the outcome of vasectomies performed by two trained surgeons over a 9-month period at the Ministry of Health Ankara Etlik Maternity and Women's Health Teaching and Research Hospital Family Planning Centre.

METHODS

The demographic data, source of information concerning the method, sexual function before and after voluntary no-scalpel vasectomy, compliance with the post-vasectomy follow-up program of men applying for a vasectomy were analyzed. All patients were contacted by telephone and invited for follow-up visits for counseling, inquiry regarding sexual dysfunction, and performance of a semen analysis.

RESULTS

The patients were married men, mostly primary school graduates, with more than one child. Sources of information were health services and/or health personnel for 89% of the patients. Of the 279 men who underwent a vasectomy and who were later contacted by phone, 131 (47%) came for a follow-up assessment. There was only one post-vasectomy pregnancy (0.8%). The incidence of reported sexual problems did not change after the procedure. Vasectomy did not affect the sexual function of men in our study.

CONCLUSION

Compliance with follow-up after vasectomy, which is extremely important for assessment of its successful outcome, is low.

Influencia del proceso analítico en la aparición y desaparición de los espermatozoides del semen tras la vasectomía

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate if the analytical process might justify that in some patients rare non motile sperm might be seen in some but not all their post-vasectomy semen samples.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Post vasectomy ejaculates received in our Center from january 2002 to december 2004 were reviewed. We used our own guidelines for post vasectomy semen assessment based upon those of the British Andrology Society for the evaluation of post vasectomy semen samples and the World Health Organization guidelines for semen analysis.

RESULTS

During the 3 years of follow up, 984 patients underwent vasectomy. We received 1.430 semen samples, 2 samples per patient on average. Regarding the pre analytical phase, 134 samples (9.4%) were not completely collected; ejaculate volumes of less than 2 mL were delivered by 269 patients (18.8%); in these cases, we were not sure whether the whole ejaculates were submitted: pre analytical conditions of 11 samples (0.8%) were inappropriate: incorrectly labeled, spilled, provided into inadequate containers... Regarding the analytical phase, 432 ejaculates (30.5%) were extremely viscous and sperm detection might have been affected; 62 semen samples (4.3%) contained many cells which obstructed the visualization of the entire microscopy field. Regarding the post analytical phase, 153 patients (20.9%) had alternative negative/positive results with rare non motile sperm.

CONCLUSION

An elevated percentage of incidences involving both the pre analytical and the analytical phase were observed during post-vasectomy seminal analysis. Inadequate conditions may affect the results and justify that spermatozoa may be seen in some but not all the ejaculates of the same patient. We recommend that two semen samples per patient are required to ensure that he is correctly evaluated. We propose to report a negative result as a spermatozoa count bellow the detection limit of our analytical procedure similar to other laboratory magnitudes to minimize the effect of fluctuations in such a low count of rare non motile sperm.

Vasectomy: A simple snip?

Vasectomy is one of the most common forms of permanent sterilization methods currently in use and has a failure rate of <1% in most reported series. Since failure of vasectomy may result in pregnancy, adequate counseling is essential. Couples are advised that an analysis of a semen specimen after vasectomy is required to confirm success before the use of alternative contraception is abandoned. However, measuring the success of vasectomy is complicated by a lack of consistency with regards to both the number and timing of tests and the end points accepted.

Determining the success of vasectomy

OBJECTIVES

To examine patient compliance, significance of rare nonmotile sperm (RNMS) and to determine the timing and number of semen analyses required to confirm sterility.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From November 2001 to November 2004, 436 consecutive primary vasectomies were performed by one surgeon. All patients were instructed to submit two initial semen specimens for analysis (2 and 3 months after vasectomy) and additional samples (at 1-month intervals) if sperm were identified on the initial and subsequent analyses.

RESULTS

A quarter of the patients submitted no semen specimens and only 21% followed the full instructions to provide two consecutive negative semen analyses. Three-quarters of the patients provided a semen specimen at 8 weeks after vasectomy; of these, 75% were azoospermic and 25% contained sperm. At 12 weeks after vasectomy half the patients provided a semen specimen; of these, 91% were azoospermic and 9% contained sperm. Of the 83 patients with semen containing sperm at 8 weeks, 80 had RNMS and three had rare motile sperm (one of whom subsequently proved to have vasectomy failure). Of the 80 patients with RNMS, at 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 months, 65, four, three, four, two, one and one, respectively were azoospermic.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results indicate that many patients are not compliant with the protocol after vasectomy. Provided patients have been adequately counselled, we think that one negative semen analysis at 3 months or one with RNMS at 2 months may be adequate to determine the success of vasectomy. This should reduce the number of semen analyses, including reducing the number of men who must undergo repeat testing, without sacrificing the accuracy of determining paternity. Simplifying the follow-up after vasectomy is important; not only would it be cost-effective but it may also improve patient compliance.

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.

HOW LITTLE IS ENOUGH? THE EVIDENCE FOR POST-VASECTOMY TESTING

PURPOSE

Post-vasectomy semen analysis (PVSA) is the traditional method of confirming sterility after vasectomy. However, PVSA protocols vary in the end points accepted, and the number and timing of tests. In this systematic review we make evidence based recommendations on the appropriate PVSA protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Databases (MEDLINE, Current Contents, Cochrane Library and EMBASE) were searched up to and including March 2003. Studies were included if they dealt with post-vasectomy testing and contained data on at least 1 of the time or number of ejaculations to azoospermia, pregnancy, repeat vasectomy and histological analysis of vas specimens.

RESULTS

A total of 56 studies were included in the review. Time to achieve azoospermia was variable, although the median incidence of patients with azoospermia was consistently more than 80% after 3 months and after 20 ejaculations. A small percent of patients (14,845 or 1.4%) demonstrated persistent nonmotile sperm, although some of them eventually achieved azoospermia. The reappearance of nonmotile sperm was reported in 7 studies, occurring up to 22 months after vasectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence supports a PVSA protocol with 1 test showing azoospermia after 3 months and 20 ejaculations. If the sample is positive, periodic testing can continue until azoospermia is achieved. Patients with persistent nonmotile sperm in low numbers could be given cautious assurance of success. No evidence was located to support histological testing of the excised vas deferens.

[The natural history of sperm cleareance after vasectomy]

OBJECTIVE

To study the time required to obtain a negative sperm analysis after vasectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We reviewed 239 consecutive vasectomies performed between september 1998 and september 1999. All of them were done in an ambulatory basis. Follow up interval was 41-853 days (mean 144, median 104). The first semen analysis was requested between 1 and 6 months after the surgical procedure. If the sample still showed spermatozoa, then a new one was requested every two months. Probability of becoming azoospermic was studied with Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Persistent spermatozoa could be found in 31 patients (13%) at the end of follow-up. Despite having a positive semen analysis, 10 patients (4.2%) discontinued medical visits. Time required to obtain a negative sperm count ranged from 58 to 362 days (mean 133, median 99). The probability of being azoospermic 200 and 260 days after vasectomy was 80-90% respectively. A total of 328 semen analysis were requested (range 1-4, mean 1.37, median 1)

CONCLUSIONS

A minimum of 200 days (6.6 months) are needed to clear all the spermatozoa in semen after vasectomy in 80% of our patients. Requesting the first semen sample 7 months after vasectomy is cost-effective, reducing unnecesary medical visits and increasing the rentability of this test.

[Vasectomy: study of 300 interventions. Review of the national literature and of its complications]

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this paper are: 1. To study the demand and reasons why of the vasectomy in area 12 of Valencian Community. 2. To analyse the adverse effects of our series and the predictable risk factors. 3. To review the adverse effects in the national series. 4. To review the adverse effects referred to in international publications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was made of 300 patients who had submitted themselves to a vasectomy between january 1992 and december 2000. All the clinical dossiers were reviewed according to 10 pre-established variables. age, number of offspring, reasons why, pre-vasectomy anticontraceptives; date of operation, type of anaesthesia used, pathologic anatomy, semen analysis after vasectomy, adverse effects and their possible causes (risk factors). The basic statistic study was done using a data base of Microsoft Access and the interpretations of the different variables using a table of Excel.

RESULTS

The demand for contraceptive attention (vasectomy) is the 8th cause for external urological consulting and the 4th for urological local ambulatory surgery of our area. 300 operations were done during that period. The average age of the patients was 37.5 years old (ranging from 25 to 51). The number of offspring ranged from 1 to 7, with a promedia of 2.41 children/patient. The reasons why were: voluntary family planning (86%), medical illnesses of the female which contraindicated gestation (9%), genetic reasons (4.33%) and social-sanitary problems (0.66%). Contraceptive methods used by 71.63% are known: The widest-used method being IUD (49.74%) and the preservative (25.88%). 30 patients (10%) had adverse effects, 29 patients having light adverse effects. The most frequent were: 12 orchiepididymitis (4%), 5 spermatic granulomas (1.66%), 3 chronic scrotal pain (1%), 2 scrotal haematoma (0.66%) and 2 bleeding (0.66%). There was one serious complications and of all the cases mentioned above only one needed hospitalization (impetigo-sepsis) and another needed surgery due to a spermatic granuloma. There were no pregnancies or post-vasectomy court cases. 81% of the patients had been declared azoospermic within 45 to 60 days after the vasectomy in one or two consecutive semen analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The vasectomy is a safe and simple way for male sterilization. It's the most widely done urologic operation in Spain. The technique isn't extent of adverse effects (0 to 18%) and its seriousness varies from a simple ecchymosis to Fournier's gangrene, endocarditis or sepsis. A doctor would be considered negligent if he/she didn't inform the patient about the remote possibility of a spontaneous recanalisation of the vas deferens leading to renewed fertility (failure of the vasectomy). It is imperative to give post-vasectomy information where the patient must continue using his habitual anticonceptive method until the azoospermia shown in 2 semen analysis confirm the sterility of the patient so that the urologist has no legal problem.

Vasectomy effectiveness in Nepal: a retrospective study

The main purpose of this retrospective, cross-sectional study was to evaluate the effectiveness of vasectomy in an ongoing public sector program in Nepal. We evaluated semen samples from men who had previously had a vasectomy, and asked about the occurrence of pregnancies in the men's partners. In addition, the surgeons who performed the vasectomies completed a questionnaire about their techniques. A two-stage stratified sampling procedure was used to select 1263 men from among over 30,000 men, who had previously undergone a no-scalpel vasectomy, mostly by ligation and excision, in 32 districts between July 1996 and June 1999. Semen samples were preserved and analyzed at a central laboratory. A US andrology laboratory validated the lab results. Twenty-three men (2.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-3.6) had >/=500,000 sperm/mL in their semen. Fifteen of those men reported pregnancies conceived after their vasectomy. In addition, six men with azoospermia reported pregnancies for which conception occurred within 3 months after vasectomy. Eleven men with azoospermia reported pregnancies for which conception occurred more than 3 months after vasectomy. Reported pregnancy was more likely in younger partners. The life table pregnancy rates for all men interviewed were 0.7 (95% CI 0.2-1.1), 1.7 (95% CI 1.4-2.1) and 4.2% (95% CI 3.2-5.2) at 3, 12 and 36 months, respectively. In low-resource, programmatic settings, vasectomy failure rates may be higher than commonly cited rates, especially in younger populations. Additional research is needed to determine if other occlusion techniques could reduce failure rates. Counseling on vasectomy should always convey the possibility of failure and partner pregnancy.

British Andrology Society guidelines for the assessment of post vasectomy semen samples (2002)

The British Andrology Society guidelines for the assessment of post vasectomy semen samples recommend that initial assessment is undertaken 16 weeks post vasectomy and after the patient has produced at least 24 ejaculates. The laboratory should examine a freshly produced seminal fluid specimen by direct microscopy and if no sperm are seen the centrifugate should be examined for the presence of motile and non-motile spermatozoa. It is recommended that the clinician should give clearance after the production of two consecutive sperm free ejaculates. In cases of persistent identification of non-motile spermatozoa the referring clinician should advise the patient regarding the cessation of other contraceptive precautions. Surgeons are responsible both preoperatively and postoperatively for the counselling of couples regarding complications and the possibility of late recanalisation after clearance.

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.

New contraceptive methods

As the number of abortion procedures performed each year reaches nearly 1 million, the incentive to decrease the incidence of unwanted pregnancy in the United States is high. Better education regarding women's health issues and enhanced contraceptive development are necessary to impact this long-standing problem. Several new contraceptive products are likely to become available in years to come to increase the number of choices that women and their health care providers have for pregnancy prevention. These products include long-acting implants, the levonorgestrel intrauterine device, patches, and the vaginal ring. This article surveys the near future of male and female contraception.

How reliable is a vasectomy? Long-term follow-up of vasectomised men

Around 42 million couples worldwide rely on vasectomy as a method of family planning. It is well recognised that a vasectomy can fall at any stage, and therefore warning couples of risk of failure forms an important part of the consent procedure.

Is the timing of post-vasectomy seminal analysis important?

OBJECTIVE

To review the practice in two hospitals with differing protocols in the timing of seminal analysis after vasectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The results from 245 vasectomies carried out at Hospital A, where semen was assessed 3 months after vasectomy, were reviewed and compared with those from 100 consecutive vasectomies at Hospital B, where semen was assessed 6 months after vasectomy. The results of seminal analysis at Hospital A were also audited after changing to the 6-month protocol. The patients' preferences for the timing of seminal analysis were also obtained.

RESULTS

Of the 245 patients at Hospital A, 58 (24%) failed to provide samples, leaving 187 (76%) for evaluation; 528 samples were examined (mean 2.8 per patient, range 1-13). The first sample was positive in 36 (19.3%) and the second positive in 10 (5.3%), the first being negative. Four (2%) patients had persistent spermatozoa at 6 months, one subsequently undergoing exploration. Thirty-one (17%) patients provided further samples despite providing two consecutive clear ones. At Hospital B, 24 (24%) patients failed to provide samples; 10 (13%) patients had persistent spermatozoa at 6 months and live spermatozoa were detected in one patient's samples. All eventually produced clear samples, with none requiring exploration. After changing the protocol, 87 vasectomies were performed, with 18 (21%) patients failing to provide samples; seven (10%) of the samples collected showed occasional nonmotile spermatozoa at 6 months in either the first, second or both samples, with all samples clear by 8 months after vasectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The complete disappearance of spermatozoa after vasectomy takes longer than is generally believed and we therefore suggest that given adequate counselling, seminal analysis 6 months after vasectomy is cost-effective and in the patient's interest.

Persistence or reappearance of nonmotile sperm after vasectomy: does it have clinical consequences?

OBJECTIVE

To determine the percentage of patients with nonmotile sperm 12 weeks after vasectomy, to estimate the time needed for eventual azoospermia in these patients, and to record the percentage of patients with recurrence of nonmotile sperm after initial azoospermia after vasectomy.

DESIGN

A review of the semen analysis of vasectomies performed in a 2-year period. Semen analysis in a group of volunteers from 4 months until 24 months after vasectomy.

SETTING

Vasectomies performed in an outpatient department of the University Hospital of Maastricht.

PATIENT(S)

Men referred by the general practitioner for a vasectomy.

INTERVENTION(S)

Vasectomy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Amount and motility of sperm in postvasectomy semen samples.

RESULT(S)

Nonmotile sperm was found in 33% of the patients 12 weeks after vasectomy. The mean time to azoospermia was 6.36 months. Nonmotile sperm after initial azoospermia was found in 5 of 65 patients.

CONCLUSION(S)

Azoospermia as a criterion for sterility leads to unnecessary prolonged semen analysis in a large percentage of the vasectomized patients. Reappearance of nonmotile sperm was found in an unexpectedly high percentage.