Literature DB >> 9557844

Comparison of microscopic epididymal sperm aspiration and intracytoplasmic sperm injection/in-vitro fertilization with repeat microscopic reconstruction following vasectomy: is second attempt vas reversal worth the effort?

J F Donovan1, M DiBaise, A E Sparks, J Kessler, J I Sandlow.   

Abstract

Since 1986, we have performed microscopic reconstruction in 18 men following failed microscopic vasectomy reversal. Between 1994 and 1996, nine couples have undergone microscopic epididymal sperm aspiration (MESA)/ intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment for male infertility due either to congenital absence of the vas deferens (CAVD) or inoperable excurrent duct obstruction. We compared the cost efficiency of repeat vasectomy reversal to that for MESA combined with ICSI/in-vitro fertilization (ICSI/IVF). The cost of male partner procedures (vasectomy reversal, MESA) was based on physician and hospital charges, while the cost of ICSI/IVF included preparation of the female partner (medications and physician charges) and procedures (physician and hospital charges including oocyte retrieval, micromanipulation, and embryo transfer). Our cost examination does not include charges related to follow-up visits, prenatal monitoring, complications of pregnancy (i.e. miscarriage) or delivery in either group. Overall patency and pregnancy rates in the repeat vasectomy reversal group were 78 and 44% respectively. The cost per delivered baby (including multiple metachronos deliveries per couple) was $14892. Fertilization of oocytes has been achieved in 37/72 (51%) and pregnancies have occurred in 6/9 (67%) attempts and 5/9 (56%) report delivery. The average cost per pregnancy was $25637 and the average cost per delivered baby (or ongoing pregnancy) was $35570. The cost per delivery by MESA/ ICSI/IVF is 2.4 times the charges per delivery obtained through repeat vasectomy repair. Couples attempting to overcome infertility caused by vasal obstruction should be informed that vas reconstruction remains a cost effective means of re-establishing fertility even in men who have previously failed vasectomy reversal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9557844     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/13.2.387

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  6 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

2.  Factors predicting overall success: a review of 747 microsurgical vasovasostomies.

Authors:  Stéphane Bolduc; Marc Anthony Fischer; Genevieve Deceuninck; Michel Thabet
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  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

4.  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 5.  Obstructive azoospermia: reconstructive techniques and results.

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

Review 6.  Vasectomy reversal: a clinical update.

Authors:  Abhishek P Patel; Ryan P Smith
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.285

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.