CUA guideline: Vasectomy

A new approach to postvasectomy semen analyses eliminates the need to evaluate a fresh specimen

BACKGROUND

According to current guidelines, confirmation that vasectomy results in sterility depends on microscopic examination of postvasectomy semen for the presence of spermatozoa. Guidelines established in 2012 require examination of a fresh specimen within 2 h of collection, which necessitates the patient making an appointment with either the surgeon's office or a licensed clinical laboratory. Twenty-five to 42% of patients fail to comply with postvasectomy semen analysis (PVSA).

OBJECTIVES

To determine if an at-home semen collection kit can substitute for the evaluation of a fresh specimen and improve patient compliance with postvasectomy spermatozoa assessment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The kit contains a patented aldehyde-fixative that maintains spermatozoa and semen cells in suspension for quantitation. Patients order a PVSA kit to be delivered to their home and can collect a semen specimen and return it to the laboratory through regular US mail.

RESULTS

From January 2011 through December 2018, 6096 men undergoing vasectomy by 184 urologists in 33 states in the US ordered PVSA kits, of which 5408 (89%) returned at least one for analysis. Of those, 398 men (7.4%) returned the first kit with greater than 10,000 spermatozoa/ml within a year of vasectomy, of which only 4.4% contained greater than 100,000 spermatozoa/ml 12 weeks postsurgery. This suggests that fewer than 5% of postvasectomy patients might need follow-up fresh semen analyses, greatly easing the logistical burden of PVSA. Ninety percent of surgeons returning a patient satisfaction questionnaire said their patients "never" complained about using PVSA kits.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

These data support the adoption of a new standard for PVSA that does not involve an initial evaluation of a fresh semen specimen.

[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.

Post-Vasectomy Semen Analysis: Optimizing Laboratory Procedures and Test Interpretation through a Clinical Audit and Global Survey of Practices

PURPOSE

The success of vasectomy is determined by the outcome of a post-vasectomy semen analysis (PVSA). This article describes a step-by-step procedure to perform PVSA accurately, report data from patients who underwent post vasectomy semen analysis between 2015 and 2021 experience, along with results from an international online survey on clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We present a detailed step-by-step protocol for performing and interpretating PVSA testing, along with recommendations for proficiency testing, competency assessment for performing PVSA, and clinical and laboratory scenarios. Moreover, we conducted an analysis of 1,114 PVSA performed at the Cleveland Clinic's Andrology Laboratory and an online survey to understand clinician responses to the PVSA results in various countries.

RESULTS

Results from our clinical experience showed that 92.1% of patients passed PVSA, with 7.9% being further tested. A total of 78 experts from 19 countries participated in the survey, and the majority reported to use time from vasectomy rather than the number of ejaculations as criterion to request PVSA. A high percentage of responders reported permitting unprotected intercourse only if PVSA samples show azoospermia while, in the presence of few non-motile sperm, the majority of responders suggested using alternative contraception, followed by another PVSA. In the presence of motile sperm, the majority of participants asked for further PVSA testing. Repeat vasectomy was mainly recommended if motile sperm were observed after multiple PVSA's. A large percentage reported to recommend a second PVSA due to the possibility of legal actions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlighted varying clinical practices around the globe, with controversy over the significance of non-motile sperm in the PVSA sample. Our data suggest that less stringent AUA guidelines would help improve test compliance. A large longitudinal multi-center study would clarify various doubts related to timing and interpretation of PVSA and would also help us to understand, and perhaps predict, recanalization and the potential for future failure of a vasectomy.

Assessing Vasectomy-Related Information on YouTube: An Analysis of the Quality, Understandability, and Actionability of Information

This study aims to critically appraise the quality of vasectomy-related health information currently available on YouTube to better address patient information needs moving forward. A YouTube search was performed using the keyword “vasectomy.” The first 100 videos were assessed, with irrelevant and duplicate videos excluded. Two independent reviewers evaluated the remaining videos using the DISCERN instrument for evaluating the quality of information and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual materials (PEMAT-A/V) for assessing the understandability and actionability of materials. Source characteristics and markers of bias and misinformation were also collected. Seventy-eight videos were included in the study, with a mean duration of 6.6 minutes and mean of 216,672 views. The median DISCERN score was poor at 28 (IQR 22–33) out of a possible 80 with mean PEMAT-AV Understandability and Actionability scores of 67.6% (±16.7%) and 33.8% (±36.2%), respectively. A medical doctor was present in 61 (78.2%) of the videos, of which 53 (86.9%) were urologists and 38 (62.2%) promoted their personal practice or institution. False statements regarding vasectomy were made in 14 (17.9%) videos. Notably, no significant difference was noted in quality, understandability, or actionability of videos created by those with personal promotion to those without. The quality of information regarding vasectomy on YouTube is poor and reaches a wide audience. Continued appraisal and creation of YouTube videos that contain quality, understandable and actionable information by urologists is necessary to ensure patients are well-informed.

Comparison of postal and non-postal post-vasectomy semen sample submission strategies on compliance and failures: an 11-year analysis of the audit database of the Association of Surgeons in Primary Care of the UK

BACKGROUND

Vasectomy occlusive success is defined by the recommendation of 'clearance' to stop other contraception, and is elicited by post-vasectomy semen analysis (PVSA). We evaluated how the choice of either a postal or non-postal PVSA submission strategy was associated with compliance to PVSA and effectiveness of vasectomy.

METHODS

We studied vasectomies performed in the UK from 2008 to 2019, reported in annual audits by Association of Surgeons in Primary Care members. We calculated the difference between the two strategies for compliance with PVSA, and early and late vasectomy failure. We determined compliance by adding the numbers of men with early failure and those given clearance. We performed stratified analyses by the number of test guidance for clearance (one-test/two-test) and the study period (2008-2013/2014-2019).

RESULTS

Among 58 900 vasectomised men, 32 708 (56%) and 26 192 (44%) were advised submission by postal and non-postal strategies, respectively. Compliance with postal (79.5%) was significantly greater than with non-postal strategy (59.1%), the difference being 20.4% (95% CI 19.7% to 21.2%). In compliant patients, overall early failure detection was lower with postal (0.73%) than with non-postal (0.94%) strategy (-0.22%, 95% CI -0.41% to -0.04%), but this difference was neither clinically nor statistically significant with one-test guidance in 2014-2019. There was no difference in late failure rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Postal strategy significantly increased compliance to PVSA with similar failure detection rates. This resulted in more individuals receiving clearance or early failure because of the greater percentage of postal samples submitted. Postal strategy warrants inclusion in any future guidelines as a reliable and convenient option.

Risk of vasectomy failure by ligation and excision with fascial interposition: A prospective descriptive study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the occlusive failure risk of ligation and excision with fascial interposition vasectomy technique. There are doubts about the effectiveness of this technique largely used in Asia and Latin America.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a prospective longitudinal observational descriptive study among men who underwent a vasectomy performed under local anesthesia in a clinic specializing in sexual and reproductive health services in Bogotá, Colombia. Three urologists used the Percutaneous No-Scalpel Vasectomy technique to isolate the vas deferens. They then ligated the vas, excised a 1 cm segment between ligations, and ligated the fascia on the prostatic end to cover the testicular end. We requested all patients to submit a semen sample three months after the vasectomy. We defined probable and confirmed vasectomy failure as 1-4.9 million sperm/ml and 5 million sperm/ml or more or any number of motile sperm observed on the last semen sample available, respectively.

RESULTS

Among 1149 participants, 581 (51%) had at least one post-vasectomy semen analysis. The overall failure risk was 5.2% (30/581; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6%-7.3%) with probable and confirmed failure risk of 1.9% (11/581; 95% CI 1.1%-3.4%) and 3.3% (19/581; 95% CI 2.1%-5.1%), respectively. Older men and one urologist had statistically significant higher risk of overall failure.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirmed that the ligation and excision with fascial interposition vasectomy technique is associated with an unacceptable risk of failure.

IMPLICATIONS

Surgeons who use the ligation and excision with fascial interposition vasectomy technique and countries with large vasectomy programs in Asia and Latin America that still recommend this technique should consider adopting alternatives to reduce the failure risk to below 1% as recommended by the American Urological Association.

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.

Reasons for not completing postvasectomy semen analysis

OBJECTIVE

To identify noncompliance rates for 3-month postvasectomy semen analysis (PVSA) in men who have undergone vasectomy and to explore the self-reported reasons for not completing the 3-month PVSA.

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review followed by semistructured telephone interviews.

SETTING

Two family medicine clinics in Saskatoon, Sask.

PARTICIPANTS

Men from the clinics who had undergone vasectomy since 2009. A total of 99 patients completed telephone interviews.

METHODS

After a review of electronic medical records at 2 family medicine clinics, patients who had undergone vasectomy since 2009 were identified. Upon review of their charts, the number of patients who did not have PVSA results on file was determined. Some of these men were contacted with a predetermined telephone script to discuss reasons for noncompliance.

MAIN FINDINGS

The combined noncompliance rate for the 2 clinics was high (60.5%). Three main reasons for not completing the PVSA were identified among the patient responses. These included patients feeling too busy to complete PVSA, patients feeling confident in the physician or procedure immediately after vasectomy, and patients feeling the PVSA process was too inconvenient. Our high noncompliance rates are consistent with other literature. However, the findings might also have been affected by the proportion of patients who had completed their PVSA who were not included in the telephone sample. Rates differed between the 2 clinics; the clinic with the higher compliance rate acts as an academic practice, with more time for appointments and fewer patients being referred from other physicians.

CONCLUSION

Noncompliance rates for PVSA in this study were high. Three main reasons for noncompliance were identified that might help guide counseling opportunities in the future.

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.

Impact of vasectomy on the sexual satisfaction of couples: experience from a specialized clinic

INTRODUCTION

Vasectomy is the simplest, safest, and most effective form of definitive fertility control in men [1]. Vasectomy is used for 10% of contraception worldwide but only for 2% in Germany [2]. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of vasectomy on the sexual satisfaction of sterilized men and their partners.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Vasectomized men and their partners were surveyed by means of the IIEF (International Index for Erectile Function) and the FSFI (Female Sexual Function Index) questionnaires. A total of 294 couples were surveyed; 90 men answered the IIEF, and 74 women answered the FSFI. The results of the questionnaires were compared to a historical comparison group. The men were also surveyed with a not validated questionnaire, which was returned by 95 men. The two-sample t-test for independent samples, the chi-squared test, and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test were carried out.

RESULTS

The vasectomized men had significantly better results than the healthy historical comparison group in the IIEF domains of erectile function, orgasm, sexual desire, and intercourse satisfaction. For the female partners of the sterilized men, there were almost no significant differences in any questions of the FSFI in comparison to the control group. A significant difference was observed only in the domain 'arousal'.

CONCLUSIONS

Vasectomy does not have a negative impact on the sexual satisfaction of the affected couples. In fact, sexual satisfaction improved for the sterilized men, while the satisfaction of the women was not reduced by the vasectomy.