Vasectomy occlusion techniques for male sterilization.

BACKGROUND: Vasectomy is an increasingly popular and effective family planning method. A variety of vasectomy techniques are used worldwide, including vas occlusion techniques (excision and ligation, thermal or electrocautery, and mechanical and chemical occlusion methods), as well as vasectomy with vas irrigation or with fascial interposition. Vasectomy guidelines largely rely on information from observational studies. Ideally, the choice of vasectomy techniques should be based on the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness, safety, acceptability and costs of vasectomy techniques for male sterilization. SEARCH METHODS: In February 2014, we updated the searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, POPLINE and LILACS. We looked for recent clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Previous searches also included EMBASE. For the initial review, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing vasectomy techniques, which could include suture ligature, surgical clips, thermal or electrocautery, chemical occlusion, vas plugs, vas excision, open-ended vas, fascial interposition, or vas irrigation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed all titles and abstracts located in the literature searches. Two reviewers independently extracted data from articles identified for inclusion. Outcome measures include contraceptive efficacy, safety, discontinuation, and acceptability. Peto odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used for dichotomous outcomes, such as azoospermia. The mean difference (MD) was used for the continuous variable of operating time. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. One trial compared vas occlusion with clips versus a conventional vasectomy technique. No difference was found in failure to reach azoospermia (no sperm detected). Three trials examined vasectomy with vas irrigation. Two studies looked at irrigation with water versus no irrigation, while one examined irrigation with water versus the spermicide euflavine. None found a difference between the groups for time to azoospermia. However, one trial reported that the median number of ejaculations to azoospermia was lower in the euflavine group compared to the water irrigation group. One high-quality trial compared vasectomy with fascial interposition versus vasectomy without fascial interposition. The fascial interposition group was less likely to have vasectomy failure. Fascial interposition had more surgical difficulties, but the groups were similar in side effects. Lastly, one trial found that an intra-vas was less likely to produce azoospermia than was no-scalpel vasectomy. More men were satisfied with the intra-vas device, however. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For vas occlusion with clips or vasectomy with vas irrigation, no conclusions can be made as those studies were of low quality and underpowered. Fascial interposition reduced vasectomy failure. An intra-vas device was less effective in reducing sperm count than was no-scalpel vasectomy. RCTs examining other vasectomy techniques were not available. More and better quality research is needed to examine vasectomy techniques.

Scalpel versus no-scalpel incision for vasectomy.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the two most common surgical techniques for approaching the vas during vasectomy are the incisional method and the no-scalpel technique. Whereas the conventional incisional technique involves the use of a scalpel to make one or two incisions, the no-scalpel technique uses a sharp-pointed, forceps-like instrument to puncture the skin. The no-scalpel technique aims to reduce adverse events, especially bleeding, bruising, hematoma, infection and pain and to shorten the operating time. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of the incisional versus no-scalpel approach to the vas. SEARCH METHODS: In February 2014, we searched the computerized databases of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, POPLINE and LILACS. We looked for recent clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Previous searches also included in EMBASE. For the initial review, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials were included in this review. No language restrictions were placed on the reporting of the trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed all titles and abstracts located in the literature searches and two authors independently extracted data from the articles identified for inclusion. Outcome measures included safety, acceptability, operating time, contraceptive efficacy, and discontinuation. We calculated Peto odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the dichotomous variables. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials evaluated the no-scalpel technique and differed in their findings. The larger trial demonstrated less perioperative bleeding (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.89) and pain during surgery (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93), scrotal pain (OR 0.63; 95% 0.50 to 0.80), and incisional infection (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.78) during follow up than the standard incisional group. Both studies found less hematoma with the no-scalpel technique (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.36). Operations using the no-scalpel approach were faster and had a quicker resumption of sexual activity. The smaller study did not find these differences; however, the study could have failed to detect differences due to a small sample size as well as a high loss to follow up. Neither trial found differences in vasectomy effectiveness between the two approaches to the vas. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The no-scalpel approach to the vas resulted in less bleeding, hematoma, infection, and pain as well as a shorter operation time than the traditional incision technique. No difference in effectiveness was found between the two approaches.