|
1
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW The aim of this review is to provide an overview of surgical treatment options for male infertility including varicocelectomy, treatment of ejaculatory duct obstruction, vasovasostomy, and sperm extraction, and to review recent advances in techniques and technologies that may improve operative outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS Microscopic subinguinal varicocelectomy has been shown to have the highest success rates with lowest rates of complications, and may be facilitated by the use of Doppler, indocyanine green angiography, and the 4K3D operating video microscope. The standard treatment for ejaculatory duct obstruction by transurethral resection of the ejaculatory ducts has changed little over time, but vesiculoscopy may allow for temporary dilation of an obstruction to allow for natural conception, while also offering diagnostic capabilities. Use of the robotic platform has gained popularity for vasectomy reversals but controversy remains regarding the cost-effectiveness of this option. Recently, a reinforcing suture technique has been described for vasovasostomy to minimize anastomotic breakdown and reversal failure. Finally, gray-scale and color-enhanced ultrasound may improve ability to predict successful sperm retrieval during extraction procedures. SUMMARY Though the fundamentals of surgical treatment options for male infertility have changed little with time, technological advancements have contributed to improved surgical outcomes over recent years.
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Liu N, Li P, Zhi E, Yao C, Yang C, Zhao L, Tian R, Chen H, Huang Y, Yu Y, Li Z. A modified single-armed microsurgical vasoepididymostomy for epididymal obstructive azoospermia: intraoperative choice and postoperative consideration. BMC Urol 2020; 20:121. [PMID: 32787873 PMCID: PMC7424978 DOI: 10.1186/s12894-020-00692-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2019] [Accepted: 08/04/2020] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Background To evaluate the clinical outcomes and the duration required for the sperm to return to the ejaculate after a modified single-armed 2-suture longitudinal intussusception vasoepididymostomy (SA-LIVE). Methods From March 2015 to December 2018, 134 patients with epididymal obstruction azoospermia underwent the modified single-armed vasoepididymostomy at Shanghai General Hospital. The outcomes and clinical findings were documented and evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 17 (range: 3–36) months. Results Patency was assessed by the return of sperm in the ejaculate. The overall patency rate was 55.2%, and the patency rates were 58.9, 40.7, 36.4, and 58.9% for bilateral surgery, unilateral surgery, proximal anastomosis, and distal anastomosis, respectively. The average time to achieve patency was 4.11 ± 2.74 months. In the first 6 months, 87.8% (65/74) patency patients reported sperm in the ejaculate. The overall pregnancy rate was 40.9% (29/66) at the follow-up of 3–36 months, and the natural pregnancy rate was 30.3% (20/66). The natural pregnancy rate was 32.1% post-bilateral surgery and 33.3% for the site of distal anastomosis; surprisingly, it was 0% for the site of proximal anastomosis. Conclusion Modified SA-LIVE is safe and may achieve favorable patency and pregnancy rates. When double-armed sutures are not accessible, single-armed may be preferable. The expected patency time was within 1 year. Moreover, because of the low natural pregnancy rate for proximal anastomosis, sperm banking is preferred to SA-LIVE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nachuan Liu
- Department of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China
| | - Peng Li
- Department of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China
| | - Erlei Zhi
- Department of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China
| | - Chencheng Yao
- Department of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China
| | - Chao Yang
- Department of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China
| | - Liangyu Zhao
- Department of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China
| | - Ruhui Tian
- Department of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China
| | - Huixing Chen
- Department of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China
| | - Yuhua Huang
- Department of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China
| | - Yuexin Yu
- Anhui Medical University, Hefei, 230032, China
| | - Zheng Li
- Department of Andrology, the Center for Men's Health, Urologic Medical Center, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200080, China.
| |
Collapse
|