Literature DB >> 8986698

Fertility options after vasectomy: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

C P Pavlovich1, P N Schlegel.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cost per delivery using two different initial approaches to the treatment of postvasectomy infertility.
DESIGN: Model of expected costs and results in the United States in 1994.
SETTING: Men with postvasectomy infertility, evaluated and treated at centers with experience in vasectomy reversal or sperm retrieval and ICSI. PATIENT(S): Men with postvasectomy infertility, with a female partner < or = 39 years of age. INTERVENTION(S): Initial microsurgical vasectomy reversal was compared with retrieved epididymal or testicular sperm. Actual treatment charges, complication rates, and pregnancy and delivery rates obtained in the United States were used for cost per delivery analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cost per delivery, delivery rates. RESULT(S): Cost per delivery with an initial approach of vasectomy reversal was only $25,475. (95% confidence interval $19,609 to $31,339), with a delivery rate of 47%. However, the cost per delivery after sperm retrieval and ICSI was $72,521. (95% confidence interval $63,357 to $81,685), with an average of $73,146 for percutaneous or testicular sperm retrieval and $71,896 for surgical epididymal sperm retrieval. The delivery rate after one cycle of sperm retrieval and ICSI was 33%. CONCLUSION(S): The most cost-effective approach to treatment of postvasectomy infertility is microsurgical vasectomy reversal. This treatment also has the highest chance of resulting in delivery of a child for a single intervention.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Americas; Artificial Insemination--cost; Clinical Research; Cost Benefit Analysis; Cost Effectiveness; Developed Countries; Evaluation; Evaluation Indexes; Family Planning; In Vitro--cost; Male Sterilization; North America; Northern America; Quantitative Evaluation; Reproduction; Reproductive Technologies; Research Methodology; Reversible Sterilization; Sterilization Reversal--cost; Sterilization, Sexual; United States; Vasectomy

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 8986698     DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(97)81870-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fertil Steril        ISSN: 0015-0282            Impact factor:   7.329


  17 in total

Review 1.  The evolution and refinement of vasoepididymostomy techniques.

Authors:  Peter T Chan
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2012-11-19       Impact factor: 3.285

Review 2.  Engaging practicing gynecologists in the management of infertile men.

Authors:  Ashok Agarwal; Alaa Hamada; Sandro C Esteves
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2014-11-05

3.  The cost effectiveness of intracyctoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

Authors:  Bruce Hollingsworth; Anthony Harris; Duncan Mortimer
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2007-11-16       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  Two-suture single-armed longitudinal intussusception vasoepididymostomy for obstructive azoospermia: report of patients characteristics and outcome.

Authors:  Saleh Binsaleh
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2014-09-14       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 5.  Current status of vasectomy reversal.

Authors:  J Ullrich Schwarzer; Heiko Steinfatt
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 6.  Diagnosis and treatment of the azoospermic patient.

Authors:  W W Lin
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.862

Review 7.  Current techniques in microsurgical reversal surgery.

Authors:  Dominick J Carbone; Joseph J Phillips
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.862

8.  Vasectomy reversal in humans.

Authors:  Aaron M Bernie; E Charles Osterberg; Peter J Stahl; Ranjith Ramasamy; Marc Goldstein
Journal:  Spermatogenesis       Date:  2012-10-01

9.  Advances in surgical treatment of male infertility.

Authors:  Hyo Serk Lee; Ju Tae Seo
Journal:  World J Mens Health       Date:  2012-08-31       Impact factor: 5.400

Review 10.  Obstructive azoospermia: reconstructive techniques and results.

Authors:  Karen Baker; Edmund Sabanegh
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.365

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.