Abstract
To investigate which surgical technique, macroscopic, microscopic or robot-assisted microscopic, shows highest postoperative patency- and pregnancy rates for vasectomy reversal (VR) by vasovasostomy (VV). This study is an updated version of the systematic review and meta-analysis entitled: “Outcomes of Macrosurgical Versus Microsurgical Vasovasostomy in Vasectomized Men: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis” published in 2021. We performed a systematic review of the English-, Dutch-, and German-language literature that described postoperative outcomes of macroscopic, microscopic, or robot-assisted microscopic VV for VR. PubMed National Library of Medicine/MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus were searched from inception to June 2021. Two reviewers independently examined the studies and associated data for eligibility. Primary outcomes were postoperative patency and pregnancy rates. Data on interval to reversal (≤ 7 years and > 7 years) and postoperative complications were also extracted. Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. We identified 46 retrospective studies and three randomized controlled trials (RCT). A total of 10,088 procedures were included. 6822 patients remained after loss to follow-up. The mean age at reversal of vasectomy was 38.0 years, and the mean interval to reversal was 6.5 years. The pooled mean postoperative patency rate was slightly higher after robot-assisted microsurgical VV (92.7%), compared to macrosurgical (81.9%) and pure microsurgical (90.1%) VV. Postoperative pregnancy rates were 42.7%, 69.7%, and 33.3% after macroscopic, pure microscopic and robot-assisted microscopic VV, respectively. Our results showed that microsurgical and robot-assisted microsurgical VV are associated with higher postoperative patency rates compared to the macrosurgical technique. VV with microsurgical assistance showed the highest post-operative pregnancy rates. However, more research is needed due to lack of RCTs and data on robot-assisted microsurgical VV.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Vasectomy is a widely used form of male contraception because of its effectiveness and simplicity. An estimated 40 to 60 million men worldwide have undergone vasectomy annually [1, 2]. With an increase in divorce rates, early sterilizations, a renewed desire for children, and changes in personal life, there has been an increase in men seeking to restore their fertility through vasectomy reversal [3]. Approximately 3.0 to 7.4% will eventually request a vasectomy reversal to regain fertility [4]. In most of these patients, the vas deferens are reconnected by bilateral vasovasostomy (VV), which is the most cost-effective method [5]. Possible alternatives include vasoepididymostomy (VE) or advanced assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) [6].
In 1977, Silber introduced a microsurgical approach to VV, which quickly became the gold standard for reversal of vasectomy because of its high success rates compared to conventional macroscopic techniques [7].
Several studies demonstrated high postoperative patency and pregnancy rates after using the surgical microscope for VV [8,9,10]. Our previous systematic review and meta-analysis entitled: “Outcomes of Macrosurgical Versus Microsurgical Vasovasostomy in Vasectomized Men: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis” confirmed this trend [11]. Meta-analysis showed postoperative patency proportions of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76–0.84) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83–0.92) after macro- and microscopic VV respectively. Proportions of post-operative pregnancy were 0.43 (95% CI, 0.35–0.50) after macroscopic VV and 0.47 (95% CI, 0.31–0.62) after microsurgical VV (11).
Currently, a new robot-assisted microsurgical technique is gaining popularity and is developing rapidly in the field of urology. This is attributed to several potential advantages of the robotic platform, such as three-dimensional magnification, increased precision, stereotactic vision, elimination of tremor, and improved ergonomics [12,13,14]. In addition, the surgeon’s autonomy is significantly increased by the ability to control three instruments and a 4th arm (camera) simultaneously [12, 13]. These features have contributed to the popularity of robotic surgery for complex microsurgical procedures such as VV. However, these techniques are evolving rapidly and a current overview of the postoperative outcomes of these three surgical techniques is lacking. In this updated version of our previous systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2021 the new robot-assisted microsurgical technique has been added to be critically examined in comparison with the other two conventional techniques for VV. In addition, new data has been included and presented.
The primary purpose of this review is to compare macrosurgical, microsurgical and robot-assisted microsurgical VV based on postoperative patency and postoperative pregnancy rates. Secondary outcomes of this study include the interval to reversal (≤ 7 years and > 7 years) and the presence of postoperative complications.
Material and Methods
Search Strategy
We performed a systematic literature review of English, Dutch, and German articles on the results of macroscopic VV, microscopic VV and robot-assisted microscopic VV for vasectomy reversal. This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The following databases were systematically searched from inception to June 2021: PubMed National Library of Medicine/MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus. The keywords were ‘vasovasostomy’, ‘vasectomy reversal’, ‘vasal reanastomosis’, ‘vasal reconnection’, ‘microsurgery’, and ‘robot’. In addition, missed relevant articles were identified by a cross-referencing. This study has been registered and published by PROSPERO (No. CRD42020194356).
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Studies that reported surgical and patient outcomes of macroscopic, microscopic, and robot-assisted microscopic VV for vasectomy reversal were eligible for inclusion. Comparative studies were also included. All procedures had to be a first reversal. Non-English, non-Dutch and non-German articles were excluded, as were systematic reviews, case report studies, case series, animal studies, and articles without an abstract. Studies on vasoepididymostomy or patients who underwent VV for a reason other than vasectomy reversal were also excluded. Figure 1 shows a flow chart of study selection, inclusions, and exclusions.
Data Collection
Two reviewers (M. D. and Y. B.) independently performed the literature search and data extraction. First, title and abstract were screened. Then the full text of potentially relevant articles was obtained and screened by the same reviewers. Any disagreements between the two reviewers were resolved through discussion. Once the inclusion criteria were met, relevant study parameters for this systematic review were extracted from each article using standardized forms and tables. These included study characteristics, patient demographics, method of VV, postoperative patency and pregnancy rates, interval to reversal, postoperative complications, and definitions of patency and pregnancy. The primary outcomes were postoperative patency and pregnancy rates. The secondary outcomes were the interval to reversal (≤ 7 years and > 7 years) and the presence of postoperative complications. In this review, patency is defined as the presence of any, motile, sperm cells in postoperative semen samples. Pregnancy is defined as successful natural conception, regardless of the course and outcome of the pregnancy.
Analysis
All data were subdivided by method of VV: macrosurgical, microsurgical and robot-assisted microsurgical. Loupe or non-magnified vasovasostomies were defined as macrosurgical. For microsurgical vasovasostomies, a surgical microscope (× 2.3–25) was used. When robotic support was added (Da Vinci robotic platform), it was classified as robot-assisted microsurgical VV. For descriptive analysis, averages of overall postoperative patency and pregnancy rates, subdivided according to surgical technique, were calculated by combining data of each included study. To provide comprehensive overviews, these averages were pooled from both retrospective studies and RCTs.
Results
Overview of Included Studies
A total of 49 studies met the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). The year of publication ranged from 1980 to 2020. Forty-six publications (94%) were retrospective studies and represented level IIb evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (Table 1). The remaining three articles were Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) (6%) and represented level Ib evidence. Most studies were conducted in the USA (n = 17), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 6) and South Korea (n = 6). A total of 10,088 procedures were included. After loss to follow-up, 6822 procedures remained (Table 1). Sample sizes ranged from 7 to 4010 patients. Overall, 1754 procedures were macrosurgical, 4930 microsurgical and 191 robot-assisted microsurgical. The mean patient age was 38.0 years (range 30.0–46.0), and the mean interval to reversal was 6.5 years (range 4.2–11.1) (Table 2).
Postoperative Patency
Macroscopic
Twenty-five (51.0%) articles reported postoperative patency rates after macrosurgical VV as a primary outcome. 81.9% (1398/1707) had a positive semen analysis after vasal reconstruction surgery [8, 15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. Overall, patency rates ranged from 67.6 to 96.3% [21, 36]. Of 890 procedures with a mean obstruction interval ≤ 7 years, 717 (80.5%) showed patency, compared with 321 (81.7%) after a mean interval to reversal > 7 years [8,9,10, 15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22, 24, 25, 28,29,30, 35, 36]. Ten studies did not examine mean interval to reversal or overall patency as endpoints (Table 2) [17, 23, 26, 27, 31,32,33,34, 37, 38].
Microscopic
Twenty-five of 49 (51.0%) publications described the microsurgical method for vasovasostomies. A total of 4287 (90.1%) had patency after vasectomy reversal, and total patency ranged from 62.0% to 100% [8,9,10, 12, 18, 21, 24, 27, 39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54]. Moreover, 87.8% (1801/2052) with a mean interval of reversal ≤ 7 years had patency [8, 10, 24, 45, 46, 53, 55]. Of all vasovasostomies performed > 7 years after vasectomy, 85.2% (585/687) showed sperm cells at postoperative semen analysis [9, 18, 21, 39, 40, 42, 47, 52, 54]. Nine studies lacked the mean obstruction interval or total patency rate (Table 2) [27, 41, 43, 44, 48,49,50,51].
Robot-Assisted Microscopic
Five (10.2%) studies evaluated robotic-assisted microsurgical VV. A review of these studies showed patency rates ranging from 80.0 to 100%. The mean overall patency rate was 92.7% (177/191) [12, 14, 50, 56, 57]. In addition, overall patency rates after a mean interval to reversal ≤ 7 years and >7 years were 89.1% (49/55) and 100% (6/6), respectively [14, 54, 56]. Two studies reported no useful mean interval to reversal (Table 2) [12, 50].
Postoperative Pregnancy
Macroscopic
Twenty-four (49.0%) of the included articles documented the number of pregnancies after macrosurgical VV. A total of 656 (42.7%) pregnancies were reported [8,9,10, 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24, 26, 28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. Pregnancy rates ranged from 26.6% to 70.0% (24, 36). 313 (37.6%) pregnancies were conceived after a mean interval to reversal ≤ 7 years, compared to 158 (42.4%) pregnancies after a mean interval to reversal > 7 years [8,9,10, 16, 18,19,20,21,22, 24, 28,29,30, 35,36,37,38]. Nine studies did not mention postoperative pregnancy or mean interval to reversal as an outcome (Table 2) [12, 15, 17, 23, 27, 48,49,50,51].
Microscopic
Twenty-one (42.9%) studies provided data on the association between microsurgical VV and postoperative pregnancy rates. These studies reported a mean total pregnancy rate of 69.7% (2993/4294), ranging from 14.0 to 91.0% [8,9,10, 18, 21, 24, 39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48, 50, 52,53,54,55]. Sixteen studies examined the mean interval to reversal as an outcome of interest. 1057 (57.3%) pregnancies were reported after a mean interval ≤ 7 years between vasectomy and microsurgical VV, while 232 (40.0%) pregnancies were conceived after a mean interval to reversal > 7 years [8,9,10, 18, 21, 22, 39, 40, 42, 45,46,47, 52,53,54,55]. Nine studies reported no pregnancy rates or mean interval to reversal (Table 2) [12, 27, 41, 43, 44, 48,49,50,51].
Robot-Assisted Microscopic
Two (6%) studies discussed postoperative pregnancy rates and robot-assisted microsurgical VV for vasectomy reversal. The mean postoperative pregnancy rate after this type of VV was 33.3% (11/33). Overall, pregnancy rates ranged from 7.7 to 50.0% [14, 50]. Santomauro et al. investigated the possible influence of the length of interval to reversal ≤ 7 years on the probability of becoming pregnant [14]. Of all 13 procedures included in this study, 1 (7.7%) pregnancy was reported. On the other hand, none of the studies assessed the consequence of the obstruction interval > 7 years on postoperative pregnancy rates. Four studies did not provide clear information on pregnancy rates or mean interval to reversal (Table 2) [12, 50, 56, 57].
Discussion
3.0% to 7.4% of all vasectomized men will eventually request a vasectomy reversal to regain fertility [4]. In most cases, this is achieved by bilateral VV, which is the most cost-effective method [5]. The microsurgical approached vasovasostomy became the golden standard since its introduction in the 1970s [7]. However, the conventional macrosurgical technique is still widely used.
Our previous systematic review and meta-analysis showed superiority of the microsurgical conducted VV over the macrosurgical conducted VV based on postoperative patency (0.88 vs 0.80) and pregnancy proportions (0.47 vs 0.43) [11].
Currently, a new robot-assisted microsurgical technique is gaining popularity and developing rapidly in the field of urology [12,13,14]. To date, it is still not clear which technique is superior and achieves the highest rates of postoperative patency and pregnancy. Therefore, the purpose of our review is to compare macrosurgical-, microsurgical-, and robot-assisted microsurgical VV for surgical and patient outcomes.
Forty-nine studies with a total of 10.088 procedures were included in this review, of which 6822 remained after loss to follow-up. Most of these publications were retrospective (N = 46), three were RCTs (Table 1).
Analysis of the literature showed a mean postoperative patency of 81.9% and 90.1% after macrosurgical and microsurgical VV, respectively, while 92.7% of patients showed patency after robot-assisted microsurgical vasovasostomy. The mean postoperative pregnancy rate was 42.7% after macrosurgical VV and 69.7% after microsurgical VV as 33.3% managed to conceive after robot-assisted micro surgical VV. These findings were supported by all comparative studies [8, 9, 12, 18, 21, 24, 27, 50], except for Safarinejad et al. [17]. After including a mean interval to reversal ≤ 7 years, postoperative patency rates remained in favor of microsurgical (87.8%) and robot-assisted microsurgical VV (89.1%) compared to macrosurgical VV (80.5%). Patency rates after a mean interval to reversal > 7 years were highest after robot-assisted microsurgical VV (100%) compared to microsurgical (85.2%) and macrosurgical VV (81.7%). When including the interval to reversal highest pregnancy rates were found after microsurgical VV, 57.3% and 40.0% after ≤ 7 years and > 7 years, respectively (Table 2). Clarification of surgery-related complications was not possible due to minimal reported information.
In general, the use of the microscope and robot in vasovasostomy seems to be in advantage. Previous literature has suggested that with the microsurgical and robot-assisted microsurgical technique, a more precise mucosa-to-mucosa anastomosis between the smaller lumen of the distal vas and the dilated lumen of the proximal vas can be achieved. This precise and watertight anastomosis prevents leakage of semen and therefore the formation of sperm granuloma and strictures [18, 41, 48, 53, 58]. Furthermore, the addition of a robotic platform provides even greater precision compared to microscopic use alone. This has been attributed to several potential advantages such as three-dimensional magnification, stereotactic vision, elimination of tremor, improved ergonomics, and the ability to operate three instruments and a 4th arm (camera) simultaneously [12, 13]. However, these latter suggestions are not reflected in the overall pregnancy rate after robot-assisted microsurgical VV. Higher postoperative pregnancy rates should be expected given all the potential benefits of robot-assisted microsurgical VV.
Strengths of this study include the clear and comprehensive overview of most recent and relevant data on different surgical techniques for VV and thus the critical assessment of the introduction of robot-assisted microsurgery in this field of urology. Moreover, this systematic review is the first to evaluate and compare conventional macro- and microsurgery with robot-assisted microsurgery used in VV. Other strengths of this study include the narrow focus of the research question, the extensive search for evidence, and the criterion-based selection of relevant data.
There are several limitations to this study. First, there is considerable heterogeneity among the studies regarding the definitions of postoperative patency and pregnancy (Table 3). Most studies defined patency as the presence of any, motile, sperm cells in the ejaculate at follow-up semen analyses while the vast majority defined pregnancy as any successful postoperative conception, regardless of the outcome. Second, the surgical method used varied from study to study and was primarily based on preference of the surgeon responsible. For example, the sutures used for anastomosis varied from 6-0 to 10-0 nylon, and in some cases Prolene stents were used to facilitate patency. Third, most included studies were of retrospective nature and therefore did not support the highest level of evidence. Fourth, assessment of one of our secondary outcomes, postoperative complication rate, was not possible due to the lack of data. Other limitations include the lack of RCTs, comparable studies, data on robot-assisted microsurgical VV, and data on surgeon experience. These inconsistencies make it difficult to compare all included studies, and findings should be interpreted with caution.
Conclusion
Based on the best available evidence, we observed higher patency rates after microsurgical and robot-assisted microsurgical VV compared to the macrosurgical technique. VV with microsurgical assistance showed the highest post-operative pregnancy rates. Inclusion of the interval to reversal did not change these insights.
However, no definitive conclusions and recommendations can be drawn from these data because of the considerable interstudy heterogeneity due to differences in the definitions of endpoints used and variation in surgical methods. In addition, there is a lack of data on robot-assisted microsurgical VV and RCTs. Given these findings, consensus on definitions of post-operative endpoints is important and more RCTs comparing all three techniques are needed.
Data Availability
All data and material will be available.
References
Schwingl PJ, Guess HA. Safety and effectiveness of vasectomy. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(5):923–36.
Shattuck D, Perry B, Packer C, Quee DC. A review of 10 years of vasectomy programming and research in low-resource settings. Global Health Sci Pract. 2016;4(4):647–60.
Potts JM, Pasqualotto FF, Nelson D, Thomas AJ, Agarwal A. Patient characteristics associated with vasectomy reversal. J Urol. 1999;161(6):1835–9.
Patel A, Smith R. Vasectomy reversal: a clinical update. Asian J Androl. 2016;18(3):365–71.
Schroeder-Printzen I, Diemer T, Weidner W. Vasovasostomy. Urol Int. 2003;70(2):101–7.
Meng MV, Greene KL, Turek PJ. Surgery or assisted reproduction? A decision analysis of treatment costs in male infertility. J Urol. 2005;174(5):1926–31.
Silber SJ. Microscopic vasectomy reversal. Fertil Steril. 1977;28(11):1191–202.
Lee L, McLoughlin MG. Vasovasostomy: A comparison of macroscopic and microscopic techniques at one institution. Fertil Steril. 1980;33(1):54–5.
Jee SH, Hong YK. One-layer vasovasostomy: Microsurgical versus loupe-assisted. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2308–11.
Safarinejad MR, Lashkari MH, Asgari SA, Farshi A, Babaei AR. Comparison of macroscopic one-layer over number 1 nylon suture vasovasostomy with the standard two-layer microsurgical procedure. Hum Fertil. 2013;16(3):194–9.
Duijn M, van der Zee JA, Bachour Y. Outcomes of Macrosurgical Versus Microsurgical Vasovasostomy in Vasectomized Men: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. SN Compr Clin Med. 2021;3(10):2193–203.
Parekattil SJ, Gudeloglu A, Brahmbhatt J, Wharton J, Priola KB. Robotic assisted versus pure microsurgical vasectomy reversal: Technique and prospective database control trial. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2012;28(7):435–44.
Kavoussi PK, Harlan C, Kavoussi KM, Kavoussi SK. Robot-assisted microsurgical vasovasostomy: the learning curve for a pure microsurgeon. J Robot Surg. 2019;13(3):501–4.
Santomauro MG, Choe CH, L’Esperance JO, Auge BK. Robotic vasovasostomy: Description of technique and review of initial results. J Robot Surg. 2012;6(3):217–21.
Ravindraanandan M, Ong CT, Elhadi M, Mahmalji W, Akhtar M. Vasectomy reversal: a review on outcomes using a loupe-assisted vasovasostomy approach. Aging Male. 2021;23(5):1217–9.
Jeon JC, Kwon T, Park S, Park S, Cheon SH, Moon KH. Loupe-assisted vasovasostomy using a prolene stent : a simpler vasectomy reversal technique. 2017;35(2):115–9.
Gopi SS, Townell NH. Vasectomy reversal: Is the microscope really essential? Scott Med J. 2007;52(2):18–20.
Hsieh ML, Huang HC, Chen Y, Huang ST, Chang PL. Loupe-assisted vs microsurgical technique for modified one-layer vasovasostomy: is the microsurgery really better? BJU Int. 2005;96(6):864–6.
Feber KM, Ruiz HE. Vasovasostomy: macroscopic approach and retrospective review. Tech Urol. 1999;5(1):8–11.
Mason RG, Connell PG, Bull JC. Reversal of vasectomy using a macroscopic technique: A retrospective study. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1997;79(6):420–2.
Singh I, Kaza RCM. A case in favour of one sided microscopic vasovasostomy - The New Delhi experience. Int Urol Nephrol. 1996;28(1):27–31.
Kabalin JN, Kessler R. Macroscopic vasovasostomyre-examined. Urology. 1991;38(2):135–8.
Middleton RG, Smith JA, Moore MH, Urry RL. A 15-year followup of a nonmicrosurgical technique for vasovasostomy. J Urol. 1987;137(5):886–7.
Lee HY. A 20-year experience with vasovasostomy. J Urol. 1986;136(2):413–5.
Bright E, Teixiera H, MacDermott JP. Patency rates following a single surgeon's technique for macroscopic vasectomy reversal. BJU Int. 2013:46.
Moudi E, Gholam M. Evaluation of Successful Vasovasostomy with the two-layer Macroscopic procedure in Shahid Beheshti Hospital. Babol. 2016;2093–8.
Hong YK, Lee JH, Lee YK. 1417: Microsurgical (9–0 Nylon) vs. loupe-assisted (8–0 Nylon) one layer vasovasostomy. J Urol. 2006;175(4):457.
Aabech J, Hansen HJ, Vibits H. Vasovasostomy in previously sterilized men. The functional result. Ugeskr Laeger. 1994;156(37):5297–300.
Choo HS, Cheon SH, Park S, Ji YH, Moon KH. A new method of vasovasostomy with the prolene stent. Korean J Urol. 2009;50(4):375–9.
Dewire DM, Lawson RK. Experience with macroscopic vasectomy reversal at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Wis Med J. 1994;93(3):107–9.
Kessler R, Freiha F. Macroscopic vasovasostomy. Fertil Steril. 1981;36(4):531–2.
Noldus J, Otto U, Salamon J, Schulze W, Klosterhalfen H. Vasovasostomy after vasectomy, the surgical results 1986–1989. Urologe A. 1992;31(2):103–5.
Urquhart D. A low power magnification technique for reanastomosis of the vas. BJU. 1981;53(5):466–9.
Fallon H, Miller RK, Gerber WL. Nonmicroscopic vasovasostomy. J Urol. 1981;126(3):361–2.
Griffiths CL. Reversal of Vasectomy: Vasovasostomy. J R Army Med Corps. 1987;133(2):87–8.
Denton SE, Bohnert WW, Kurtz CW. Vasectomy reversal technique and results. Ariz Med. 1983;40(1):33–6.
Shessel FS, Lynne CM, Politano VA. Use of exteriorized stents in vasovasostomy. Urology. 1981;17(2):163–5.
Jokelainen OS, Rintala E, Koskimies AI, Rannikko S. Vasovasostomy – a 15-year experience. Scand J Urol Neprhol. 2001;35(2):132–5.
Busato WFS. Vasectomy reversal: a seven-year experience. Urol Int. 2009;82(2):170–4.
Dohle GR, Smit M. Microsurgical vasectomy reversal: results and predictors of success. Andrologie. 2005;15(2):167–71.
Silber SJ, Grotjan EH. Microscopic vasectomy reversal 30 years later: a summary of 4010 cases by the same surgeon. J Androl. 2004;25(6):845–59.
Huang HC, Hsieh ML, Huang ST, Tsui KH, Lai RH, Chang PL. Microsurgical vasectomy reversal: ten-years’ experience in a single institute. Chang Gung Med J. 2002;25(7):453–7.
Fuse H, Kimura H, Katayama T. Modifief one-layer microsurgical vasovasostomy in vasectomized patients. Int Urol Nephrol. 1995;27(4):451–6.
Fox M. Vasectomy reversal: microsurgery for best results. Br J Urol. 1994;73(4):449–53.
Belker AM, Thomas AJ, Fuchs EF, Konnak JW, Sharlip ID. Results of 1,469 microsurgical vasectomy reversals by the vasovasostomy study group. J Urol. 1991;145(3):505–11.
Aldridge KW, Bueschen AJ, Keith Lloyd L, Burns JR. Microsurgical vasovasostomy for reversal of elective bilateral segmental vasectomy. Southern Med J. 1985;78(8):967–9.
Sharlip ID. Vasovasostomy: comparison of two microsurgical techniques. Urology. 1981;17(4):347–52.
Willscher MK, Novicki DE. Simplified technique for microscopic vasovasostomy. Urology. 1980;15(2):147–9.
Cheng P, Wu W, Chang H, Chung S. The expected outcome of microscope assisted vasovasostomy in Asian people. BJU Int. 2019:28-29.
Umari P, De Naeyer G, Schatteman P. Microsurgical vs robot-assisted vasovasostomy: Technical aspects and results. Eur Urol Suppl. 2018;17(2):1996.
Kumar R, Mukherjee S. “4 x 4 vasovasostomy”: a simplified technique for vasectomy reversal. Indian J Urol. 2010;26(3):350–2.
Hong YK, Lee JH, Jank WK, Oh JJ, Shin JS, Kim YC, Chung HJ. 1064 one-layer microsurgical vasovasostomy in vasectomized patients. Eur Urol Suppl. 2007;2(6):288.
Owen ER. Microsurgical vasovasostomy: a reliable vasectomy reversal. Aust New Zeal J Surg. 1977;47(3):305–9.
Friederich MG, Friederich E, Graefen M, Heinzer H, Michl U, Huland H, Noldus J. Succes rates of two-layer microsurgical vasovasostomy, results from a patient questionnaire and comparison with one-layer technique. Aktuelle Urol. 2006;37(1):58–63.
Wright GM, Cato A, Webb DR. Macrosurgical vasovasostomy in military personnel. Australian New Zealand J Surg. 1995;65(1):20–6.
Marshall MT, Doudt AD, Berger JH, Auge BK, Christman MS, Choe CH. Robot-assisted vasovasostomy using a single layer anastamosis. 2017;11(3):299-303.
Mechlin C, McCullough A. Robotic microsurgical vasectomy reversal: Initial experience and surgical outcomes from a single academic centre. 2013;189(4):653-654.
Amelar RD, Dubin L. Vasectomy reversal. J Urol. 1979;121(5):547–50.
Funding
Not applicable
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MD: conceptualization/conceived and designed research, methodology, data inclusion, data analyzing, writing—original draft preparation, resource, has read and approved the manuscript. YB: methodology, data inclusion, data analyzing, writing—review and editing, has read and approved the manuscript. JZ: writing—review and editing, validation of study concept and data, supervision, has read and approved the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
Not applicable
Consent to Participate
Not applicable
Consent for Publication
As corresponding author, I confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved for publication by all the named authors. Consent for publication of an external partner is not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Code Availability
Not applicable
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Surgery
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Duijn, M., van der Zee, J.A. & Bachour, Y. Outcomes of Three Vasovasostomy Surgical Techniques in Vasectomized Men: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature. SN Compr. Clin. Med. 5, 56 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-023-01397-0
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-023-01397-0