Reinforcing vasal suture technique improves sperm concentration and pregnancy rates in men undergoing vasovasostomy for vasectomy reversal.

BACKGROUND: Vasovasostomy (VV) is a well-described surgical technique with few notable modifications since microsurgical adaptation in the 1970s. Although contemporary reversal success rates are 70-90%, these most often are based on a lenient definition of >0 sperm (patency) and include only VV procedures. With stricter definitions, success rates drop >30%. To improve outcomes, a novel surgical technique (reinforcing vasal suture, ReVas) was developed, and outcomes were compared prior to and following implementation. METHODS: A prospective registry of sequential patients undergoing vasectomy reversal was queried from Jan 2014 to June 2019. The ReVas technique was implemented in Jan 2018, wherein the abdominal and testicular vasa are secured side-to-side to alleviate strain on the anastomosis. Primary outcomes were changes in sperm concentration: >0/mL, >100,000/mL, >1 million/mL, >5 million/mL, >15 million/mL, and most recent. Secondary outcome was pregnancy rate. Demographic, clinical, and select operative variables were statistically compared between ReVas (+) and (-) cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 200 men underwent reversal, of whom 169 represented first-time attempts (61 receiving the new technique) and comprise the current cohort. ReVas (+) and (-) cohorts were similar in demographic, clinical, and operative factors with the exception of operative time [longer in ReVas (+) group]. Median duration since vasectomy was 9 years, and 68.6% of men received a bilateral VV. Follow-up was significantly longer in the ReVas (-) arm (37 vs. 10 months). All primary outcomes were significantly higher in the ReVas (+) cohort, with odds ratios ranging from 5.8 to 11.1 (P<0.01 to 0.0001). Pregnancy rates within the first 2 years post reversal were also 8.1× higher in the ReVas (+) group (P=0.02). A subset of men with bilateral VV exhibited a 95% likelihood of achieving >15 million/mL in ReVas (+) men compared to 54% in ReVas (-). Multivariable analysis confirmed ReVas as an independent predictor of success. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ReVas technique resulted in significantly higher sperm concentrations, which were particularly pronounced when stricter success criteria were used. Patients were also 8.1× more likely to achieve a pregnancy within the first 2 years, confirming clinical relevance. External validation is warranted.

Vasectomy reversal: decision making and technical innovations.

Vasectomy is the method of contraception chosen by more than 500,000 American men annually, and by upwards of 8% of married couples worldwide. However, following the procedure, nearly 20% of men express the desire for children in the future, and approximately 2-6% of American men will ultimately undergo vasectomy reversal (VR). VR is a complex microsurgical procedure. Intraoperative decision-making, surgical technique, and postoperative management are each critical step in achieving high success rates. The aim of this article is to provide a detailed description of the operative and perioperative procedures employed by surgeons performing VRs.

Vasectomy reversal: A clinical update / 亚洲男科学杂志(英文版)

Vasectomy is a safe and effective method of contraception used by 42-60 million men worldwide. Approximately 3%-6% of men opt for a vasectomy reversal due to the death of a child or divorce and remarriage, change in financial situation, desire for more children within the same marriage, or to alleviate the dreaded postvasectomy pain syndrome. Unlike vasectomy, vasectomy reversal is a much more technically challenging procedure that is performed only by a minority of urologists and places a larger financial strain on the patient since it is usually not covered by insurance. Interest in this procedure has increased since the operating microscope became available in the 1970s, which consequently led to improved patency and pregnancy rates following the procedure. In this clinical update, we discuss patient evaluation, variables that may influence reversal success rates, factors to consider in choosing to perform vasovasostomy versus vasoepididymostomy, and the usefulness of vasectomy reversal to alleviate postvasectomy pain syndrome. We also review the use of robotics for vasectomy reversal and other novel techniques and instrumentation that have emerged in recent years to aid in the success of this surgery.

A new one-layer epididymovasostomy technique.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and evaluate the outcomes of a new epididymovasostomy technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nine patients with obstructive azoospermia were treated at the Minia University Hospital using a new microsurgical bilateral epididymovasostomy technique. The technique involved the opening of a small window in the tunica of the epididymis, making an opening in the underneath epididymal tubule and keeping it open by fixing the edges of the epididymal opening to the edge of the epididymal tunica with four 10/0 nylon sutures. The abdominal cut end of the vas deferens was then anastomosed to the epididymal opening by suturing the epididymal tubule, fixed to its tunica in one layer, to the full thickness vas deferens. The main outcome measure was finding sperm in the ejaculate. RESULTS: Sperm was found in the ejaculate in six out of nine patients after our new, one-layer, epididymovasostomy technique. Mean ± sd operating time was 176 ± 23 min. CONCLUSIONS: This new, one-layer, epididymovasostomy technique provides a simple alternative method of epididymovasostomy, with reasonable outcomes. More cases and follow-up are needed to make meaningful comparisons with conventional epididymovasostomy.

The need for epididymovasostomy at vasectomy reversal plateaus in older vasectomies: a study of 1229 cases.

Vasectomy reversal involves either vasovasostomy (VV) or epididymovasostomy (EV), and rates of epididymal obstruction and EV increase with time after vasectomy. However, as older vasectomies may not require EV for successful reversal, we hypothesized that sperm production falls after vasectomy and can protect the system from epididymal blowout. Our objective was to define how the need for EV at reversal changes with time after vasectomy through a retrospective review of consecutive reversals performed by three surgeons over a 10-year period. Vasovasotomy was performed with Silber score 1-3 vasal fluid. EVs were performed with Silber score 4 (sperm fragments; creamy fluid) or 5 (sperm absence) fluid. Reversal procedure type was correlated with vasectomy and patient age. Post-operative patency rates, total spermatozoa and motile sperm counts in younger (<15 years) and older (>15 years) vasectomies were assessed. Simple descriptive statistics determined outcome relevance. Among 1229 patients, 406 had either unilateral (n = 252) or bilateral EV's (n = 154) constituting 33% (406/1229) of reversals. Mean patient age was 41.4±7 years (range 22-72). Median vasectomy interval was 10 years (range 1-38). Overall sperm patency rate after reversal was 84%. The rate of unilateral (EV/VV) or bilateral EV increased linearly in vasectomy intervals of 1-22 years at 3% per year, but plateaued at 72% in vasectomy intervals of 24-38 years. Sperm counts were maintained with increasing time after vasectomy, but motile sperm counts decreased significantly (p < 0.001). Pregnancy, secondary azoospermia, varicocoele and sperm granuloma were not assessed. In conclusion, and contrary to conventional thinking, the need for EV at reversal increases with time after vasectomy, but this relationship is not linear. EV rates plateau 22 years after vasectomy, suggesting that protective mechanisms ameliorate epididymal 'blowout'. Upon reversal, sperm output is maintained with time after vasectomy, but motile sperm counts decrease linearly, suggesting epididymal dysfunction influences semen quality after reversal.

Twenty Years' Experience with Surgery for Obstructive Azoospermia / 대한비뇨기과학회지

No abstract available.