Problema: contraccezione maschile

  • Jay B. Shah
  • Harry Fisch
  • Arnold M. Belker
  • David J. Handelsman
  • Geoffrey Malcolm Hasting Waites
Chapter

Riassunto

Nonostante i progressi di altri metodi di controllo delle nascite nel corso di questi ultimi decenni, la vasectomia rimane una delle più diffuse forme di contraccezione. La sicurezza, la semplicità e l’effetto duraturo di questa tecnica ne fanno un’opzione interessante sia per i pazienti che per i medici. Tuttavia, ci sono numerose controversie riguardanti la gestione adeguata di un paziente dopo la vasectomia. In questa rassegna esaminiamo i risultati dopo la vasectomia, focalizzando l’attenzione sullo svolgimento, sugli aspetti tecnici e sull’interpretazione dell’analisi del liquido seminale dopo vasectomia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliografia

  1. Ahmed I, Rasheed S, White C, Shaikh NA (1997) The incidence of postvasectomy chronic testicular pain and the role of nerve stripping (denervazione) of the spermatic cord in its management. Br J Urol 79:269–270PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcaraz A, Arango O (1996) Cancer and other risks of vasectomy. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 1:311–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Alderman PM (1988) The lurking sperm. A review of failures in 8879 vasectomies performed by one physician. JAMA 259:3142–3144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Badrakumar C, Gogoi NK, Sundaram SK (2000) Semen analysis after vasectomy: when and how many? Br J Urol 86: 479–481Google Scholar
  5. Barone MA, Nazerali H, Cortes M, Chen-Mok M, Pollack AE, Sokal D (2003) A prospective study of time and number of ejaculations to azoospermia after vasectomy by ligation and excision. J Urology 170:376–379Google Scholar
  6. Benger JR, Swami SK, Gingell JC (1995) Persistent spermatozoa after vasectomy: a survey of British urologists. Br J Urol 76:376–379PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernal-Delgado E, Latour-Perez J, Pradas-Arnal F, Gomez-Lopez LI (1998) The association between vasectomy and prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Fertil Steril 70:191–200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen TF, Ball RY (1991) Epididymectomy for post-vasectomy pain: histological review. Br J Urol 68:407–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Clenney TL, Higgins JC (1999) Vasectomy techniques. Am Fam Phys 60: 137–152Google Scholar
  10. Cortes M, Flick A, Barone MA, Amatya R, Pollack AE, OteroFlores J, Juarez C, McMullen S (1997) Results of a pilot study of time to azoospermia after vasectomy in Mexico City. Contraception 56:215–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. DeKnijff DWW, Vrijhof HJEJ, Arends J, Janknegt RA (1997) Persistence or reappearance of nonmotile sperm after vasectomy: does it have clinical consequences? Fertil Steril 67:332–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards IS (1993) Earlier testing after vasectomy, based on the absence of motile sperm. Fertil Steril 59:431–436PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Esho JO, Cass AS (1978) Recanalization rate following methods of vasectomy using interposition of fascial sheath of vas deferens. J Urology 120:178–179Google Scholar
  14. Esho JO, Ireland GW, Cass AS (1974) Vasectomy. Comparison of ligation and Fulguration methods. Urology 3:337–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Finger WR (1997) Time to azoospermia may be longer than often assumed. Network 18:15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Freund MJ, Weidmann JE, Goldstein M, Marmar J, Santulli R, Oliveira N (1989) Microrecanalization after vasectomy in man. J Androl 10:120–132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Giovannucci E, Tosteson TD, Speizer FE, Vessy MP, Colditz GA (1992) A long-term study of mortality in men who have undergone vasectomy. N Engl J Med 326:1392–1398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Haldar N, Cranston D, Turner E, MacKenzie I, Guillebaud J (2000) How reliable is vasectomy? Long-term follow-up of vasectomized men. Lancet 356:43–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hancock P, McLaughlin E for the British Andrology Society (2002) British Andrology Society guidelines for the assessment of post vasectomy semen samples (2002). J Clin Pathol 55:812–816CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Haws JM, Morgan GT, Pollack AE, Koonin LM, Magnani RJ, Gargiullo PM (1998) Clinical aspects of vasectomies performed in the United States in 1995. Urology 52:685–691CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Jaffe TM, Kim ED, Hoekstra TH, Lipshultz LI (1998) Sperm pellet analysis: a technique to detect the presence of sperm in men considered to have azoospermia by routine semen analysis. J Urology 159:1548–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Labrecque M, Hoang D, Turcot L (2003) Association between length of the vas deferens excised during vasectomy and the risk of postvasectomy recanalization. Fertil Steril 79:1003–1007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lemack GE, Goldstein M (1996) Presence of sperm in the prevasectomy reversal semen analysis: incidence and implications. J Urology 155:167–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lesko SM, Louik C, Vezina R, Rosenberg L, Shapiro S (1999) Vasectomy and prostate cancer. J Urol 161:1848–1852CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Li SQ, Goldstein M, Zhu J, Huber D (1991) The no-scalpel vasectomy. J Urology 145:341–344Google Scholar
  26. Liskin I, Renoir E, Blackburn R (1992) Vasectomy — new opportunities. Population Reports [D] 5:1–23Google Scholar
  27. Liu X, Li S (1993) Vasal sterilization in China. Contraception 48:255–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mason RG, Dodds L, Swami SK (2002) Sterile water irrigation of the distal vas deferens at vasectomy: does it accelerate clearance of sperm? A prospective randomized trial. Urology 59:424–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mettlin C, Natarajan M, Huben R (1990) Vasectomy and prostate cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol 132:1956–1961Google Scholar
  30. Myers SA, Mershon CE, Fuchs EF (1997) Vasectomy reversal for treatment of the post-vasectomy pain syndrome. J Urol 157:518–520CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Nangia AK, Mules JL, Thomas AJ (2000) Vasectomy reversal for the post-vasectomy pain syndrome: a clinical and histological evaluation. J Urol 164:1939–1342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Nazerali H, Thapa S, Hays M, Pathak LR, Pandey KR, Sokal DC (2003) Vasectomy effectiveness in Nepal: a retrospective study. Contraception 67:397–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Brien TS, Cranston D, Ashwin P, Turner E, MacKenzie IZ, Gillebaud J (1995) Temporary reappearance of sperm 12 months after vasectomy. Br J Urol 76:371–372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Peterson HB, Xia Z, Hughes JM, Wilcox LS, Taylor LR, Trussel J for The US Collaborative Review of Sterilization Working Group (1996) The risk of pregnancy after tubal sterilization: findings from the US collaborative review of sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174:1161–1170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Piccinino LJ, Mosher WD (1998) Trends in contraceptive use in the United States: 1982–1995. Fam Plann Perspect 30: 4–10, 46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosenberg L, Palmer JR, Zauber AG, Warshauer ME, Strom BL, Harlap S, Shapiro A (1994) The relation of vasectomy to the risk of cancer. Am J Epidemiol 140:431–438PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Schlegel PN, Goldstein M (1993) Vasectomy. In: Schoupe D, Haseltine FP (eds) Contraception. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 181–191Google Scholar
  38. Schwingl PJ, Guess HA (2000) Safety and effectiveness of vasectomy. Fertil Steril 73:923–936CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith AG, Crooks J, Singh NP, Scott R, Lloyd SN (1998) Is the timing of post-vasectomy seminal analysis important? Br J Urol 81:458–460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith JC, Cranston D, O’Brien T, Guillebaud J, Hindmarsh J, Turner AG (1994) Fatherhood without apparent spermatozoa after vasectomy. Lancet 344:30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Stone N, Blum DS, DeAntoni EP, Crawford ED, Schmid K, Eisenberger MA, Berger ER, Jefferson P, Staggers F, Gambert SR (1994) Prostate cancer risk factor analysis among >50,000 men in a national study of prostate-specific antigen (PSA). J Urol 151:278AGoogle Scholar
  42. Weiske WH (2002) Vasectomy. Andrologia 33:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bibliografia

  1. Belker AM (1980) Microsurgical two-layer vasovasostomy: simplified technique using hinged, folding-approximating clamp. Urology 16:376–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Belker AM, Thomas AJ Jr, Fuchs EF, Konnak JW, Sharlip ID, Thomas AJ Jr (1991) Results of 1,469 microsurgical vasectomy reversals by the Vasovasostomy Study Group. J Urol 145: 505–511PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Kim ED, Winkel E, Orejuela F, Lipshultz LI (1998) Pathological epididymal obstruction unrelated to vasectomy: results with microsurgical reconstruction. J Urol 160:2078–2080CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Kolettis PN, Thomas AJ Jr (1997) Vasoepididymostomy for vasectomy reversal: a critical assessment in the era of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. J Urol 158:467–470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Matthews GJ, Schlegel PN, Goldstein M (1995) Patency following microsurgical vasoepididymostomy and vasovasostomy: temporal considerations. J Urol 154:2070–2073CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Schmidt SS (1978) Vasovasostomy. Urol Clin North Am 5:585–592PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Silber SJ (1977) Sperm granuloma and reversibility of vasectomy. Lancet 2:588–589CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Silber SJ (1979) Epididymal extravasation following vasectomy as a cause for failure of vasectomy reversal. Fertil Steril 31:309–315PubMedGoogle Scholar

Bibliografia

  1. Anderson RA, Baird DT (2002) Male contraception. Endocr Rev 23:735–762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bebb RA, Anawalt BD, Christensen RB, Paulsen CA, Bremner WJ, Matsumoto AM (1996) Combined administration of levonorgestrel and testosterone induces more rapid and effective suppression of spermatogenesis than testosterone alone: a promising male contraceptive approach. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 81:757–762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cooper TG (2002) The epididymis as a target for male contraception. In: Robaire B, Hinton BT (eds) The epididymis: from molecules to clinical practice. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp 483–502Google Scholar
  4. Ford WCL, Waites GMH (1986) Sperm maturation and the potential for contraceptive interference. In: Zatuchni GI, Goldsmith A, Spieler JM, Sciarra JJ (eds) Male contraception: advances and future prospects. Harper and Row, Philadelphia, Pa., pp 89–106Google Scholar
  5. Gu YQ, Wang XH, Xu D, Peng L, Cheng LF, Huang MK, Huang ZJ, Zhang GY (2002) A multicenter contraceptive efficacy study of injectable testosterone undecanoate in healthy Chinese men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 88:562–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Handelsman DJ (2003) Hormonal male contraception-lessons from the East when the Western market fails. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 88:559–561CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Handelsman DJ (2005) Male contraception. In: DeGroot LJ, Jameson JL (eds) Endocrinology, 5th edn. WB Saunders, Philadelphia pp 3247–3256Google Scholar
  8. Handelsman DJ, Conway AJ, Howe CJ, Turner L, Mackey MA (1996) Establishing the minimum effective dose and additive effects of depot progestin in suppression of human spermatogenesis by a testosterone depot. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 81:4113–4121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kamischke A, Nieschlag E (2004) Progress towards hormonal male contraception. Trends Pharmacol Sci 25:49–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Martin CW, Anderson RA, Cheng L, Ho PC, van der Spuy Z, Smith KB et al (2000) Potential impact of hormonal male contraception: crosscultural implications for development of novel preparations. Hum Reprod 15:637–645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Meriggiola MC, Bremner WJ, Paulsen CA, Valdiserri A, Incorvaia L, Motta R, Pavani A, Capelli M, Flamigni C (1996) A combined regimen of cyproterone acetate and testosterone enanthate as a potentially highly effective male contraceptive. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 81:3018–3023CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. United Nations (2000) Levels and trends of contraceptive use as assessed in 1998. Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Waites GMH (2003) Development of methods of male contraception: impact of the World Health Organization Task Force. Fertil Steril 80:1–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. WHO Task Force on Methods for the Regulation of Male Fertility (1990) Contraceptive efficacy of testosterone-induced azoospermia in normal men. Lancet 336: 955–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bibliografia

  1. Carey RF, Lytle CD, Cyr WH (1999) Implications of laboratory tests of condom integrity. Sex Transm Dis 26:216–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Gallo MF, Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2003) Nonlatex vs. latex male condoms for contraception: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Contraception 68:319–326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Stewart F, Stewart GK, Kowal D, Guest F, Cates W Jr, Policar MS (1994) Contraceptive technology, 16th edn. Irvington, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Holmes KK, Levine R, Weaver M (2004) Effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections. Bull World Health Organ 82:454–461PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Liskin L, Wharton C, Blackburn R, Kestelman P (1990) Condoms-Now more than ever. Population Information Program, Center for Communication Programs, The Johns Hopkins University, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  6. Md.Rogow D, Horowitz S (1995) Withdrawal: a review of the literature and an agenda for research. Stud Fam Plann 26:140–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Rosenberg MJ, Waugh MS, Solomon HM, Lyszkowski AD (1996) The male polyurethane condom: a review of current knowledge. Contraception 53:141–146CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Trussell J, Grummer-Strawn L (1990) Contraceptive failure of the ovulation method of periodic abstinence. Fam Plann Perspect 22:65–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Trussell J, Kost K (1987) Contraceptive failure in the Unites States: a critical review of the literature. Stud Fam Plann 18:237–283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Trussell J, Vaughan B (1999) Contraceptive failure, method-related discontinuation and resumption of use: results from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Fam Plann Perspect 31:64–72, 93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Trussell J, Hatcher RA, Cates W, Stewart FH, Kost K (1990) Contraceptive failure in the United States: an update. Stud Fam Plann 21:51–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. United Nations (2000) Levels and trends of contraceptive use as assessed in 1998. Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Walsh TL, Frezieres RG, Peacock K, Nelson AL, Clark VA, Bernstein L, Wraxall BG (2003) Use of prostate specific antigen (PSA) to measure semen exposure resulting from male condom failures: implications for contraceptive efficacy and the prevention of sexually transmitted disease. Contraception 67:139–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. WHO (1999) Annual Technical Report 1998, Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Geneva, Switzerland, p 111Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jay B. Shah
    • 1
  • Harry Fisch
    • 2
  • Arnold M. Belker
    • 3
    • 4
  • David J. Handelsman
    • 5
  • Geoffrey Malcolm Hasting Waites
    • 5
  1. 1.Squier Urological ClinicColumbia University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Clinical Urology Department of UrologyColumbia University, Columbia University Medical Center of New York, Presbyterian HospitalNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of UrologyUniversity of Louisville School of MedicineLouisvilleUSA
  4. 4.LouisvilleUSA
  5. 5.ANZAC, Research Institute & Department of Andrology, Concord HospitalUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations