International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 625–632 | Cite as

Factors predicting success after microsurgical vasovasostomy

  • Marco Cosentino
  • Maria F. Peraza
  • Alvaro Vives
  • Josvany Sanchez
  • Daniel Moreno
  • Judith Perona
  • Gerardo Ortiz
  • Maria Alcoba
  • Eduardo Ruiz
  • Joaquim Sarquella
Urology - Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

To identify factors predicting success and analyze critically the status of microsurgical double-layer vasovasostomy using predictive models.

Methods

A cohort of 263 patients treated at our institution for vasectomy reversal between 1986 and 2010 was included in our study, and the literature was reviewed. Inclusion criteria were previous bilateral vasectomy and presence of at least two postoperative semen analyses; patients reporting pregnancy without a postoperative semen analysis were excluded. A double-layer, microscope-assisted, tension-free anastomosis vasovasostomy was performed approximating mucosa to mucosa and muscle to muscle with a 10-0 non-absorbable suture. A multivariate logistic regression backward stepwise model was used to predict combined success, and a predictive model was calculated with remaining variables.

Results

Mean age was of 41.6 years (SD 7.1); mean duration of obstruction 7.2 years (SD 6.7). On multivariate analysis, uni- or bilateral granuloma and Silber grade of I–III were variable identified predicting higher probability to success (OR 3.105; 95% CI 1.108–8.702; p = 0.031 and OR 4.795; 95% CI 2.117–10.860; p < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusions

Based on our results, some factors predicting success after vasovasostomy surgery are known but others remain unknown; our predictive model may easily predict patency and success after this surgery and offers a concrete assistance in counseling patients.

Keywords

Vasectomy reversal Patency Microsurgery Predictive factors 

Abbreviations

VSG

Vasovasostomy study group

VV

Vasovasostomy

VE

Vasoepididymostomy

Notes

Acknowledgements

To Cristina Esquinas Lopez for statistical analysis and for her patience.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Pile JM, Barone MA (2009) Demographics of vasectomy-USA and international. Urol Clin North Am 36(3):295–305.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2009.05.006 (Review) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sandlow JI, Nagler HM (2009) Vasectomy and vasectomy reversal: important issues. Preface. Urol Clin North Am 36(3):13–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2009.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gugliotta A (1998) “Dr. Sharp with his little knife”: therapeutic and punitive origins of eugenic vasectomy–Indiana, 1892–1921. J Hist Med Allied Sci 53(4):371–406 (No abstract available) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reilly PR (1987) Involuntary sterilization in the United States: a surgical solution. Q Rev Biol 62(2):153–170 (Review) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ochsner AJ (1925) The surgical treatment of habitual criminals, imbeciles, perverts, paupers, morons, epileptics, and degenerates. Ann Surg 82(3):321–325CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sengoopta C (2003) ‘Dr Steinach coming to make old young!’: sex glands, vasectomy and the quest for rejuvenation in the roaring twenties. Endeavour 27(3):122–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martin E, Carnett JB, Levi JV, Pennington ME (1902) The surgical treatment of sterility due to obstruction at the epididymis; together with a study of the morphology of human spermatozoa. Univ Pa Med Bull 15(1):2–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Belker AM, Thomas AJ Jr, Fuchs EF, Konnak JW, Sharlip ID (1991) Results of 1469 microsurgical vasectomy reversals by the Vasovasostomy Study Group. J Urol 145(3):505–511CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chan PT, Brandell RA, Goldstein M (2005) Prospective analysis of outcomes after microsurgical intussusception vasoepididymostomy. BJU Int 96(4):598–601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schiff J, Chan P, Li PS, Finkelberg S, Goldstein M (2005) Outcome and late failures compared in 4 techniques of microsurgical vasoepididymostomy in 153 consecutive men. J Urol 174(2):651–655 (quiz 801) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldstein M, Li PS, Matthews GJ (1998) Microsurgical vasovasostomy: the microdot technique of precision suture placement. J Urol 159(1):188–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nagler HM, Jung H (2009) Factors predicting successful microsurgical vasectomy reversal. Urol Clin North Am 36(3):383–390.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2009.05.010 (Review) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hsiao W, Goldstein M, Rosoff JS et al (2012) Nomograms to predict patency after microsurgical vasectomy reversal. J Urol 187(2):607–612.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.10.044 (Epub 2011 Dec 15) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied logistic regression, 1st edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fox M (1994) Vasectomy reversal-microsurgery for best results. Br J Urol 73(4):449–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boorjian S, Lipkin M, Goldstein M (2004) The impact of obstructive interval and sperm granuloma on outcome of vasectomy reversal. J Urol 171(1):304–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bolduc S, Fischer MA, Deceuninck G, Thabet M (2007) Factors predicting overall success: a review of 747 microsurgical vasovasostomies. Can Urol Assoc J 1(4):388–394CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hsieh ML, Huang HC, Chen Y, Huang ST, Chang PL (2005) Loupe-assisted vs. microsurgical technique for modified one-layer vasovasostomy: is the microsurgery really better? BJU Int 96(6):864–866CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gudeloglu A, Brahmbhatt JV, Parekattil SJ (2014) Robot-assisted microsurgery in male infertility and andrology. Urol Clin North Am 41(4):559–566.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2014.07.010 (Epub 2014 Aug 19. Review) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Silber SJ (1977) Microscopic vasectomy reversal. Fertil Steril 28(11):1191–1202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kolettis PN, Burns JR, Nangia AK, Sandlow JI (2006) Outcomes for vasovasostomy performed when only sperm parts are present in the vasal fluid. J Androl 27(4):565–567 (Epub 2006 Apr 1) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee R, Li PS, Schlegel PN, Goldstein M (2008) Reassessing reconstruction in the management of obstructive azoospermia: reconstruction or sperm acquisition? Urol Clin North Am 35(2):289–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2008.01.005 (Review) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kolettis PN, Sabanegh ES, D’amico AM, Box L, Sebesta M, Burns JR (2002) Outcomes for vasectomy reversal performed after obstructive intervals of at least 10 years. Urology 60(5):885–888CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Silber SJ (1989) Pregnancy after vasovasostomy for vasectomy reversal: a study of factors affecting long-term return of fertility in 282 patients followed for 10 years. Hum Reprod 4(3):318–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fuchs EF, Burt RA (2002) Vasectomy reversal performed 15 years or more after vasectomy: correlation of pregnancy outcome with partner age and with pregnancy results of in vitro fertilization with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 77(3):516–519CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parekattil SJ, Kuang W, Agarwal A, Thomas AJ (2005) Model to predict if a vasoepididymostomy will be required for vasectomy reversal. J Urol 173(5):1681–1684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parekattil SJ, Kuang W, Kolettis PN et al (2006) Multi-institutional validation of vasectomy reversal predictor. J Urol 175(1):247–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pearson K (1900) On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variablesis such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling (PDF). Philosophical Magazine. 50:157–175.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14786440009463897 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cochran WG (1952) The Chi-square test of goodness of fit. Ann Stat 23:315–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Cosentino
    • 1
  • Maria F. Peraza
    • 1
  • Alvaro Vives
    • 1
  • Josvany Sanchez
    • 1
  • Daniel Moreno
    • 1
  • Judith Perona
    • 2
  • Gerardo Ortiz
    • 3
  • Maria Alcoba
    • 4
  • Eduardo Ruiz
    • 1
  • Joaquim Sarquella
    • 1
  1. 1.Andrology Department, Fundacio PuigvertUniversitat Autonoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Anaesthesia Department, Hospital de Sant PauUniversitat Autonoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.The American British Cowday Medical CenterCiudad MéxicoMexico
  4. 4.Urology DepartmentHospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez DíazMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations