Clinical application of cross microsurgical vasovasostomy in scrotum for atypical obstructive azoospermia / 浙江大学学报（英文版）（B辑：生物医学和生物技术）

Seminal duct obstruction may result in obstructive azoospermia (OA) and severe oligoasthenoteratozoospermia (OAT) (<0.5 million/mL) (Nordhoff et al., 2015). Cases of partial OA and OAT can be treated effectively by microsurgical anastomosis (Goldstein and Kim, 2013) to obtain successful surgical reversal. However, microsurgical vasovasostomy (VV) (Dickey et al., 2015) and vasoepididymostomy (VE) (Peng et al., 2017) are not suitable for patients with atypical OA and poor epididymis conditions or unpredictable obstruction of the distal vas deferens. For those patients, cross anastomosis may be applied instead of routine VE or VV. A single-center, retrospective, comparison study was conducted, which assessed the usefulness of the cross VV (CVV) in the scrotum for indication and efficacy. A total of 77 cases with OA or OAT were included, and 20 cases implemented cross anastomosis, including unilateral CVV (UCVV) in 4 cases, unilateral VE plus CVV (UVE+CVV) in 11 cases, and unilateral VV-based CVV (UVV+CVV) in 5 cases. The other 57 cases received no cross-matching anastomosis. The patency and natural pregnancy rates in one year were 75.0% and 50.0%, respectively, in the UCVV group; 54.5% and 27.3%, respectively, in the UVE+CVV group; and 60.0% and 40.0%, respectively, in the UVV+CVV group. The CVV in the scrotum in the selected patients with OA and severe OAT could yield good results. We regard the CVV in the scrotum as an efficacious operation with a lower risk of injury in cases of atypical OA.

Microsurgical treatment of obstructive azoospermia: a report of 76 cases / 中华男科学杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To investigate the clinical effect of microsurgical vasoepididymostomy and/or vasovasostomy in the treatment of obstructive azoospermia.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>This study included 76 patients with obstructive azoospermia, 53 treated by bilateral vasoepididymostomy (8 involving the epididymal head, 18 involving the epididymal body, 5 involving the epididymal tail, and 22 involving the epididymal head, body and tail), 14 by unilateral vasoepididymostomy, and the other 9 by unilateral vasoepididymostomy + unilateral vasovasostomy (including cross anastomosis). We followed up the patients for 2 to 16 months for the patency rate, routine semen parameters, and pregnancy outcomes.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The success rate of bilateral vasoepididymostomy, unilateral vasoepididymostomy, and unilateral vasoepididymostomy + unilateral vasovasostomy (including cross anastomosis) were 62.26% (33/53), 35.71% (5/14), and 77.78% (7/9), respectively. The average sperm concentrations in the three groups of patients were (27.9 +/- 5.74), (11.8 +/- 8.33), and (19.9 +/- 7.53) x 10(6)/ml, the average total sperm counts were (65.6 +/- 13.71), (28.0 +/- 15.86), and (69.2 +/- 28.59) x 10(6), and the mean rates of progressively motile sperm were (22.3 +/- 3.18), (11.0 +/- 9.77), and (15.8 +/- 5.05)%, respectively. The success rates of bilateral vasoepididymostomy that involved the epididymal head, body, tail, and all the three parts were 62.5, 72.22, 60, and 54.55%, respectively. Natural pregnancy was achieved in 8 (10.53%) of the total number of cases.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Microsurgery is effective for the treatment obstructive azoospermia. Unilateral vasoepididymostomy + unilateral vasovasostomy is superior to the other procedures, followed by bilateral vasoepididymostomy. Bilateral vasoepididymostomy involving the epididymal body may achieve a slightly better effect than that involving the other epididymal parts.</p>