Advertisement

Vasoepididymostomy: End-to-Side Longitudinal Multilayer Intussusception

  • Sheldon H. F. Marks
Chapter

Abstract

A vasoepididymostomy is considered one of the most technically challenging microsurgical procedures in medicine and requires highly refined microsurgical skills to achieve good results. These skills take regular practice to perfect and are rapidly perishable, so performing a VE is not for the “occasional” microsurgeon. The modern VE has evolved over the past decades from an end-to-end connection to the standard end-to-side five- to six-suture approach to the three-suture horizontal intussusception to the current longitudinal two-suture intussusception technique. Advances in techniques, microsutures, and microneedles yielding the highest success make the current end-to-side intussusception anastomosis the most preferred approach by most reversal experts.

Keywords

Vasoepididymostomy Intussusception Epididymal tubule End-to-side longitudinal VE Invagination Three-needle VE Two-needle VE Five- to six-suture VE 

References

  1. 1.
    Chawla A, O'Brien J, Lisi M, et al. Should all urologists performing vasectomy reversals be able to perform vasoepididymostomies if required? J Urol. 2004;172:1048–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crain DS, Roberts JL, Amling CL. Practice patterns in vasectomy reversal surgery: results of a questionnaire study among practicing urologists. J Urol. 2004;171:311–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chan PT. The evolution and refinement of vasoepididymostomy techniques. Asian J Androl. 2013;15:49–55. Asian J Androl 2016 Jan-Feb; 18(1): 129–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ostrowski KA, Tadros NN, Polackwich AS, McClure RD, Fuchs EF, Hedges JC. Factors and practice patterns that affect the decision for vasoepididymostomy. Can J Urol. 2017;24(1):8651–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fuchs ME, Anderson RE, Ostrowski KA, Brant WO, Fuchs EF. Pre-operative risk factors associated with need for vasoepididymostomy at the time of vasectomy reversal. Andrology. 2016;4(1):160–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Matthews GJ, Schlegel PN, Goldstein M. Patency following microsurgical vasoepididymostomy and vasovasostomy: temporal considerations. J Urol. 1995;154:2070–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kumar R, Gautam G, Gupta NP. Early patency rates after the two-suture invagination technique of vaso-epididymal anastomosis for idiopathic obstruction. BJU Int. 2006;97:575–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peng J, Yuan Y, Zhang Z, Gao B, Song W, et al. Patency rates of microsurgical vasoepididymostomy for patients with idiopathic obstructive azoospermia: a prospective analysis of factors associated with patency – single-center experience. Urology. 2012;79:119–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chan PT, Brandell RA, Goldstein M. Prospective analysis of outcomes after microsurgical intussusception vasoepididymostomy. BJU Int. 2005;96:598–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheldon H. F. Marks
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Arizona College of MedicineInternational Center Vasectomy ReversalTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations