G J Matthews1, K E McGee, M Goldstein. 1. Department of Urology, New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York 10021, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We characterized microsurgical reconstruction treatment outcomes following a failed vasectomy reversal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 64 repeat vasectomy reversals (52 first and 12 second repeat procedures) performed on 57 men. RESULTS: Of men with absolute azoospermia (initial or complete procedure failures) following vasovasostomy 74% required 1 or more vasoepididymostomies, compared to 24% of men with initially patent vasovasostomies (late failures) (p < 0.001). Crude patency and pregnancy rates were 67 and 30%, respectively, for the entire cohort, 93 and 43%, respectively, for men undergoing vasovasostomy on at least 1 side, and 47 and 15%, respectively, for those undergoing vasoepididymostomy only. Stenosis rates for repeat vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy were 27 and 18%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Complete failure of vasectomy reversal usually is due to unrecognized epididymal obstruction. Late failure following initial patency suggests a compromised anastomosis. Repeat vasectomy reversals result in patency and pregnancy rates somewhat lower than previously reported for unselected vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy. Because stenosis rates are greater following reoperation, intraoperative and postoperative sperm cryopreservation is recommended.
PURPOSE: We characterized microsurgical reconstruction treatment outcomes following a failed vasectomy reversal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 64 repeat vasectomy reversals (52 first and 12 second repeat procedures) performed on 57 men. RESULTS: Of men with absolute azoospermia (initial or complete procedure failures) following vasovasostomy 74% required 1 or more vasoepididymostomies, compared to 24% of men with initially patent vasovasostomies (late failures) (p < 0.001). Crude patency and pregnancy rates were 67 and 30%, respectively, for the entire cohort, 93 and 43%, respectively, for men undergoing vasovasostomy on at least 1 side, and 47 and 15%, respectively, for those undergoing vasoepididymostomy only. Stenosis rates for repeat vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy were 27 and 18%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Complete failure of vasectomy reversal usually is due to unrecognized epididymal obstruction. Late failure following initial patency suggests a compromised anastomosis. Repeat vasectomy reversals result in patency and pregnancy rates somewhat lower than previously reported for unselected vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy. Because stenosis rates are greater following reoperation, intraoperative and postoperative sperm cryopreservation is recommended.
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