|
1
|
Seth I, Gibson D, Bulloch G, Joseph K, Cevik J, Qin KR, Shahbaz S, Rozen WM. Vasovasostomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing macroscopic, microsurgical, and robot-assisted microsurgical techniques. Andrology 2024; 12:740-767. [PMID: 37804499 DOI: 10.1111/andr.13543] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2023] [Revised: 09/24/2023] [Accepted: 09/29/2023] [Indexed: 10/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Vasovasostomy is a cost-effective procedure for the reversal of vasectomy. A water-tight adequately blood-supplied mucosal anastomosis is required for better outcomes. This review aimed to compare the outcome of vasovasostomy performed by three different techniques: macroscopic, pure microsurgical, and robot-assisted microsurgical techniques. METHODS Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched for relevant studies from January 1901 to June 2023. We conducted our quantitative syntheses using the inverse variance method in OpenMeta software. The study's protocol was registered on PROSPERO. RESULTS This review involved 95 studies of different designs, with a total sample size of 48,132. The majority of operations were performed bilaterally, and participants were monitored for up to 10 years. The pooled patency rate was the highest following robot-assisted vasovasostomy (94.4%), followed by pure microsurgical vasovasostomy (87.5%), and macroscopic vasovasostomy (83.7%). The pooled pregnancy rate following purely microsurgical vasovasostomy was higher than that of macroscopic vasovasostomy (47.4 vs. 43.7%). Definitive pregnancy rates in robotic vasovasostomy are yet to be determined. CONCLUSION Patency outcomes for vasovasostomy were best with robot-assisted microsurgical technique, followed by pure microsurgical technique, and conventional macroscopic technique. Further investigations of robot-assisted microsurgical vasovasostomy outcomes and randomized control trials are required to support this evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ishith Seth
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Peninsula Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Surgery, Central Clinical School at Monash University, The Alfred Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Damien Gibson
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Gabriella Bulloch
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Konrad Joseph
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jevan Cevik
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Peninsula Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Surgery, Central Clinical School at Monash University, The Alfred Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Kirby R Qin
- Department of Urology, Bendigo Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Shekib Shahbaz
- Department of Urology, Monash Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Warren M Rozen
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Peninsula Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Surgery, Central Clinical School at Monash University, The Alfred Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|