J Hernandez1, E S Sabanegh. 1. Department of Urology, Wilford Hall Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We review the treatment outcomes for microsurgical reconstruction following failed vasectomy reversal and identify predictors for success. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of our experience with microsurgical reconstruction in 41 men who underwent 1 or more prior unsuccessful vasectomy reversal procedures. Of these patients 20 underwent bilateral (16) or unilateral (4) vasoepididymostomy, 11 underwent bilateral (7) or unilateral (4) vasovasostomy and 10 underwent unilateral vasoepididymostomy with contralateral vasovasostomy. Postoperative followup consisted of serial semen analyses and telephone interviews. RESULTS: Patency and pregnancy followup data were available in 33 and 31 patients, respectively. Five couples had ongoing uncorrected female factor infertility problems and were not included in pregnancy rate calculations. Mean obstructive interval was 10.6 years. Overall patency and pregnancy rates were 79 and 31%, respectively. Mean total motile sperm count for patients demonstrating patency at followup was 38.0 million. History of conception with the current partner was predictive of future conception with 4 of 5 nonremarried couples (80%) initiating a pregnancy versus 3 of 18 remarried couples (17%) (p = 0.006). Other factors, including smoking history and obstructive interval, did not correlate with postoperative success. Reconstruction with vasovasostomy on at least 1 side trended toward improved patency (p = 0.17) and pregnancy rates (p = 0.15), although they did not assume statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Microsurgical reconstruction following failed vasectomy reversal is associated with high patency and moderate pregnancy rates at short-term followup. In our series previous conception with the current partner was predictive of future conception after reconstruction. Urologists performing repeat vasectomy reversal must be familiar with microsurgical techniques, since almost three-quarters of patients will require at least unilateral vasoepididymostomy.
PURPOSE: We review the treatment outcomes for microsurgical reconstruction following failed vasectomy reversal and identify predictors for success. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of our experience with microsurgical reconstruction in 41 men who underwent 1 or more prior unsuccessful vasectomy reversal procedures. Of these patients 20 underwent bilateral (16) or unilateral (4) vasoepididymostomy, 11 underwent bilateral (7) or unilateral (4) vasovasostomy and 10 underwent unilateral vasoepididymostomy with contralateral vasovasostomy. Postoperative followup consisted of serial semen analyses and telephone interviews. RESULTS: Patency and pregnancy followup data were available in 33 and 31 patients, respectively. Five couples had ongoing uncorrected female factor infertility problems and were not included in pregnancy rate calculations. Mean obstructive interval was 10.6 years. Overall patency and pregnancy rates were 79 and 31%, respectively. Mean total motile sperm count for patients demonstrating patency at followup was 38.0 million. History of conception with the current partner was predictive of future conception with 4 of 5 nonremarried couples (80%) initiating a pregnancy versus 3 of 18 remarried couples (17%) (p = 0.006). Other factors, including smoking history and obstructive interval, did not correlate with postoperative success. Reconstruction with vasovasostomy on at least 1 side trended toward improved patency (p = 0.17) and pregnancy rates (p = 0.15), although they did not assume statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Microsurgical reconstruction following failed vasectomy reversal is associated with high patency and moderate pregnancy rates at short-term followup. In our series previous conception with the current partner was predictive of future conception after reconstruction. Urologists performing repeat vasectomy reversal must be familiar with microsurgical techniques, since almost three-quarters of patients will require at least unilateral vasoepididymostomy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Americas; Developed Countries; Examinations And Diagnoses; Family Planning; Male Sterilization; Microsurgery; North America; Northern America; Research Methodology; Research Report; Retrospective Studies; Sterilization, Sexual; Studies; Surgery; Treatment; United States; Vasectomy
Authors: Ujval S Pathak; Adithya Balasubramanian; Jonathan A Beilan; Mohit Butaney; Alexander J Tatem; Nannan Thirumavalavan; Larry I Lipshultz Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2019-12