Literature DB >> 1493712

A comparison of open-end versus closed-end vasectomies: a report on 6220 cases.

W M Moss1.   

Abstract

This study was done to determine if there was a difference in results when both vas ends were closed or when the prostatic end was closed and the testicular end left open. The author performed 6220 vasectomies between June 1, 1972 and June 1, 1992. The first series consisted of 3081 vasectomies in which both ends of the vas deferens were closed. The second series consisted of 3139 vasectomies in which the testicular end of the vas deferens was left open while the prostatic end only was closed. No portion of the vas was excised. Congestive epididymitis was diagnosed in 6% of cases utilizing closed-end vasectomy and 2% of cases where the open-end vasectomy was performed. Open-end vasectomy is recommended because the incidence of congestive epididymitis is reduced.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Americas; California; Comparative Studies; Developed Countries; Diseases; Epididymitis; Family Planning; Incidence; Infections; Male Sterilization; Measurement; North America; Northern America; Reproductive Tract Infections; Research Methodology; Sterilization, Sexual; Studies; Surgery; Treatment; United States; Vas Occlusion; Vasectomy--complications

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1493712     DOI: 10.1016/0010-7824(92)90116-b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contraception        ISSN: 0010-7824            Impact factor:   3.375


  10 in total

1.  Trends in vasectomy. Analysis of one teaching practice.

Authors:  J L Reynolds
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 2.  Is vasectomy harmful to health?

Authors:  S W McDonald
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 3.  Chronic Scrotal Content Pain: a Review of the Literature and Management Schemes.

Authors:  Paul J Oh; Petar Bajic; Scott D Lundy; Matthew Ziegelmann; Laurence A Levine
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 4.  Contraceptive failure in the United States.

Authors:  James Trussell
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2011-03-12       Impact factor: 3.375

5.  [Ambulatory vasectomy. Risks and complications].

Authors:  J Leissner; F Reiher; M Böhm; E P Allhoff
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  [Efficacy and complications associated with vasectomies in two clinics in the Quebec region].

Authors:  M Labrecque; L Bédard; L Laperrière
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 3.275

7.  Vasectomy surgical techniques in South and South East Asia.

Authors:  Michel Labrecque; John Pile; David Sokal; Ramachandra C M Kaza; Mizanur Rahman; S S Bodh; Jeewan Bhattarai; Ganesh D Bhatt; Tika Man Vaidya
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2005-05-25       Impact factor: 2.264

Review 8.  Vasectomy surgical techniques: a systematic review.

Authors:  Michel Labrecque; Caroline Dufresne; Mark A Barone; Karine St-Hilaire
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2004-05-24       Impact factor: 8.775

9.  Effectiveness of vasectomy using cautery.

Authors:  Mark A Barone; Belinda Irsula; Mario Chen-Mok; David C Sokal
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2004-07-19       Impact factor: 2.264

Review 10.  Vasectomy reversal for post-vasectomy pain syndrome.

Authors:  L I Smith-Harrison; Ryan P Smith
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-05
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.