One-layer vasovasostomy: microsurgical versus loupe-assisted
- PMID: 20074726
- DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.12.013
One-layer vasovasostomy: microsurgical versus loupe-assisted
Abstract
Objective: To compare the outcomes of microsurgical versus loupe-assisted technique for vasectomy reversal.
Design: Retrospective comparative study with randomization.
Setting: University hospital male infertility clinic.
Patient(s): Fifty men with obstructive azoospermia after vasectomy.
Intervention(s): One-layer vasovasostomy with microscope (group I) or optical loupe (group II).
Main outcome measure(s): Patency, pregnancy, operation time, postoperative stricture.
Result(s): Mean operation time was 106.4±10.3 minutes in group I and 78.3±5.7 minutes in group II, showing a statistically significant difference. Analysis of semen sampled from men, who succeeded in getting vasal patency, was performed finally at the sixth month after surgery and showed sperm concentrations of 21.5 million/mL and 20.7 million/mL and sperm motilities of 32.5% and 30.8% in groups I and II, respectively, without a statistical significance. Patency rates were 96% (24 out of 25) in group I and 72% (18 out of 25) in group II, showing a statistically significant difference. Pregnancy rates were 40% (10 out of 25) in group I and 28% (7 out of 25) in group II. There was no statistically significant difference in pregnancy rate between the two groups. Postoperative vasal stricture occurred in four patients, all of them from group II. There was no operation-related complication, such as hematoma or wound infection.
Conclusion(s): Microscopic technique yielded a higher patency rate than loupe-assisted technique, possibly by reducing the chance of postoperative vasal stricture.
Copyright © 2010 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Loupe-assisted vs microsurgical technique for modified one-layer vasovasostomy: is the microsurgery really better?BJU Int. 2005 Oct;96(6):864-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05727.x. BJU Int. 2005. PMID: 16153218
-
Experience with macroscopic vasectomy reversal at the Medical College of Wisconsin.Wis Med J. 1994 Mar;93(3):107-9. Wis Med J. 1994. PMID: 8009877
-
Robotic microsurgical vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: a prospective randomized study in a rat model.J Urol. 2004 Apr;171(4):1720-5. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000115902.00988.68. J Urol. 2004. PMID: 15017273
-
Factors predicting successful microsurgical vasectomy reversal.Urol Clin North Am. 2009 Aug;36(3):383-90. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2009.05.010. Urol Clin North Am. 2009. PMID: 19643240 Review.
-
Techniques for vasectomy reversal.Urol Clin North Am. 2009 Aug;36(3):375-82. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2009.05.011. Urol Clin North Am. 2009. PMID: 19643239 Review.
Cited by
-
Vasectomy reversal utilizing fibrin glue.Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2019 Mar 20;32(2):196-198. doi: 10.1080/08998280.2018.1548839. eCollection 2019 Apr. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2019. PMID: 31191126 Free PMC article.
-
Obstructive azoospermia: reconstructive techniques and results.Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2013;68 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):61-73. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2013(sup01)07. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2013. PMID: 23503955 Free PMC article. Review.
-
A successful Vasovasostomy operation.Clin Case Rep. 2022 Dec 27;10(12):e6794. doi: 10.1002/ccr3.6794. eCollection 2022 Dec. Clin Case Rep. 2022. PMID: 36590668 Free PMC article.
-
Vasectomy reversal: a clinical update.Asian J Androl. 2016 May-Jun;18(3):365-71. doi: 10.4103/1008-682X.175091. Asian J Androl. 2016. PMID: 26975488 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Simplifying vasectomy reversal without compromising outcomes: a single-surgeon series.Transl Androl Urol. 2024 Jul 31;13(7):1173-1179. doi: 10.21037/tau-23-604. Epub 2024 Jul 4. Transl Androl Urol. 2024. PMID: 39100841 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources