Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2004 Mar 31:2:6.
doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-2-6.

Vasectomy by ligation and excision, with or without fascial interposition: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN77781689]

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Vasectomy by ligation and excision, with or without fascial interposition: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN77781689]

David Sokal et al. BMC Med. .

Abstract

Background: Randomized controlled trials comparing different vasectomy occlusion techniques are lacking. Thus, this multicenter randomized trial was conducted to compare the probability of the success of ligation and excision vasectomy with, versus without, fascial interposition (i.e. placing a layer of the vas sheath between two cut ends of the vas).

Methods: The trial was conducted between December 1999 and June 2002 with a single planned interim analysis. Men requesting vasectomies at eight outpatient clinics in seven countries in North America, Latin America, and Asia were included in the study. The men were randomized to receive vasectomy with versus without fascial interposition. All surgeons performed the vasectomies using the no-scalpel approach to the vas. Participants had a semen analysis two weeks after vasectomy and then every four weeks up to 34 weeks. The primary outcome measure was time to azoospermia. Additional outcome measures were time to severe oligozoospermia (<100 000 sperm/mL) and vasectomy failure based on semen analyses.

Results: We halted recruitment after the planned interim analysis, when 841 men had been enrolled. Fascial interposition decreased time to azoospermia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.35; P < 0.0001) and time to severe oligozoospermia (HR, 1.32; P < 0.0001) and reduced failures based on semen analysis by about half, from 12.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.7 to 16.3) to 5.9% (95% CI, 3.8 to 8.6) (P < 0.0001). Older men benefited less from fascial interposition than younger men in terms of the speed of achieving azoospermia. However, the number of vasectomy failures was reduced to a similar degree in all age groups. Slightly more adverse events occurred in the fascial interposition group, but the difference was not significant. These failure rates may appear high to practitioners in countries such as the USA, but they are similar to results from other careful studies of ligation and excision techniques.

Conclusion: Fascial interposition significantly improves vasectomy success when ligation and excision is the method of vas occlusion. A limitation of this study is that the correlation between postvasectomy sperm concentrations and risk of pregnancy is not well quantified.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Standardized fascial interposition technique A suture is used to position the stump of the prostatic end outside of the fascial sheath and the stump of the testicular end inside the fascial sheath. Source: EngenderHealth: No-Scalpel Vasectomy: An Illustrated Guide for Surgeons. 3rd edition. New York: EngenderHealth; 2003. Reprinted with permission.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Participant disposition flow chart
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cumulative event probabilities by treatment group Thin line, no-scalpel vasectomy with fascial interposition. Thick line, no-scalpel vasectomy without fascial interposition. 3.A: Time to success as defined by azoospermia. 3.B: Time to success as defined by severe oligozoospermia, <100,000 sperm/mL.

References

    1. Schwingl PJ, Guess HA. Safety and effectiveness of vasectomy. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:923–936. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00482-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Liskin L, Pile JM, Quillin WF. Population Reports: Male Sterilization Series D. Vol. 4. Baltimore: John Hopkins University, Population Information Program; 1983.
    1. Trussell J, Kowal D. The essentials of contraception. In: Hatcher RA, Trussel J, Stewart F, Cates W, Stewart GK, Guest F, Kowal D, editor. In Contraceptive Technology. 17. New York: Ardent Media; 1998. pp. 211–247.
    1. Nazerali H, Thapa S, Hays M, Pathak LR, Pandey KR, Sokal DC. Vasectomy effectiveness in Nepal: a retrospective study. Contraception. 2003;67:397–401. doi: 10.1016/S0010-7824(03)00028-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wang D. Contraceptive failure in China. Contraception. 2002;66:173–178. doi: 10.1016/S0010-7824(02)00334-7. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data