Vasectomy re-reversal: effectiveness and parameters associated with its success

ABSTRACT Introduction: When the vasectomy reversal (VR) fails, and the patient desires natural conception with his sperm, vasectomy re-reversal (VRR) is the only alternative. Purpose: To determine the VRR effectiveness and whether specific parameters can be associated with its success. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 18 consecutive vasectomized patients, who had failed their VR through bilateral vasovasostomy, and posteriorly were submitted to VRR. The parameters of the study were: age of the patients, elapsed time between vasectomy and VRR (V-VRRt), elapsed time between VR and VRR (VR-VRRt), presence of spermatozoa in the proximal vas deferens fluid (SptzVDF) in the VRR and results of semen analysis after VRR (SA-VRR). Results: The mean of the age of the patients was 44.11±6.55 years (32.0-57.0), the mean of V-VRRt was 11.76±6.46 years (1.5-25.0) and the mean of VR-VRRt was 2.13±2.27 years (0.5-10.0). SptzVDF in the VRR were found bilaterally in 8 patients, unilaterally in 4 and absent in 6. SA-VRR demonstrated normozoospermia in 9 patients, oligozoospermia in 3 and azoospermia in 6, with patency rate of 66.67%. SA-VRR showed statistically significant dependence only with SptzVDF in the VRR (p <0.01). Conclusions: VRR was effective in restoring the obstruction in more than half of the patients. Furthermore, the presence of spermatozoa in the vas deferens fluid was the parameter associated with the VRR success.

Spermatozoa retrieval for cryopreservation after death

ABSTRACT Objectives To describe the retrieval spermatozoa technique for cryopreservation after death, including the proximal part of vas deferens. Material and Methods A 28-years old man, with previous history of infertility, who had died 12 hours before, was submitted to spermatozoa retrieval for cryopreservation, with surgical bilateral resection in bloc of the proximal part of vas deferens, testicle and epididymis. At the laboratory, by milking the epididymis and vas deferens, the extracted fluid was collected; also, three samples of each testicle parenchyma were also harvested. Results The fluid from the vas deferens showed spermatozoa, mostly with in situ motility. Testicular fragments also presented spermatozoa, mostly with small tail movements or immobile. Conclusion The inclusion of the proximal part of vas deferens during spermatozoa retrieval after death must be performed, since it contains high concentration of spermatozoa, and even in the presence of previous infertility, as was with this patient, it is possible to retrieve spermatozoa.