PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide guidance to clinicians who offer vasectomy services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using the search dates January 1949-August 2011 was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to vasectomy. The search identified almost 2,000 titles and abstracts. Application of inclusion/exclusion criteria yielded an evidence base of 275 articles. Evidence-based practices for vasectomy were defined when evidence was available. When evidence was insufficient or absent, expert opinion-based practices were defined by Panel consensus. The Panel sought to define the minimum and necessary concepts for pre-vasectomy counseling; optimum methods for anesthesia, vas isolation, vas occlusion and post-vasectomy follow up; and rates of complications of vasectomy. This guideline was peer reviewed by 55 independent experts during the guideline development process. RESULTS: Vas isolation should be performed using a minimally-invasive vasectomy technique such as the no-scalpel vasectomy technique. Vas occlusion should be performed by any one of four techniques that are associated with occlusive failure rates consistently below 1%. These are mucosal cautery of both ends of the divided vas without ligation or clips (1) with or (2) without fascial interposition; (3) open testicular end of the divided vas with MC of abdominal end with FI and without ligation or clips; and (4) non-divisional extended electrocautery. Patients may stop using other methods of contraception when one uncentrifuged fresh semen specimen shows azoospermia or ≤ 100,000 non-motile sperm/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Vasectomy should be considered for permanent contraception much more frequently than is the current practice in the U.S. and many other nations. The full text of this guideline is available to the public at http://www.auanet.org/content/media/vasectomy.pdf.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide guidance to clinicians who offer vasectomy services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using the search dates January 1949-August 2011 was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to vasectomy. The search identified almost 2,000 titles and abstracts. Application of inclusion/exclusion criteria yielded an evidence base of 275 articles. Evidence-based practices for vasectomy were defined when evidence was available. When evidence was insufficient or absent, expert opinion-based practices were defined by Panel consensus. The Panel sought to define the minimum and necessary concepts for pre-vasectomy counseling; optimum methods for anesthesia, vas isolation, vas occlusion and post-vasectomy follow up; and rates of complications of vasectomy. This guideline was peer reviewed by 55 independent experts during the guideline development process. RESULTS: Vas isolation should be performed using a minimally-invasive vasectomy technique such as the no-scalpel vasectomy technique. Vas occlusion should be performed by any one of four techniques that are associated with occlusive failure rates consistently below 1%. These are mucosal cautery of both ends of the divided vas without ligation or clips (1) with or (2) without fascial interposition; (3) open testicular end of the divided vas with MC of abdominal end with FI and without ligation or clips; and (4) non-divisional extended electrocautery. Patients may stop using other methods of contraception when one uncentrifuged fresh semen specimen shows azoospermia or ≤ 100,000 non-motile sperm/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Vasectomy should be considered for permanent contraception much more frequently than is the current practice in the U.S. and many other nations. The full text of this guideline is available to the public at http://www.auanet.org/content/media/vasectomy.pdf.
Authors: Bimal Bhindi; Christopher J D Wallis; Madhur Nayan; Ann M Farrell; Landon W Trost; Robert J Hamilton; Girish S Kulkarni; Antonio Finelli; Neil E Fleshner; Stephen A Boorjian; R Jeffrey Karnes Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Michel Labrecque; Ron Weiss; Neil Pollock; Michel Bernier; Yvan Bernier; Marco Bertucci; Gilles Brunet; Jay Buenafe; Benoit Caouette; Pierre Crouse; Michel Dallaire; Jonathan Follows; Graham Lohlun; Nicolas Nélisse; Dominique Pilon; Simon Plourde Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Keith A Jarvi; Christopher Wu; J Curtis Nickel; Trustin Domes; John Grantmyre; Armand Zini Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Eric J Jacobs; Rebecca L Anderson; Victoria L Stevens; Christina C Newton; Ted Gansler; Susan M Gapstur Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 44.544