Microsurgical vasovasostomy after failed vasovasostomy

Jae Seung Paick, Jae Young Park, Dal Woo Park, Kwanjin Park, Hwancheol Son, Soo Woong Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: We analyzed our experience with repeat microsurgical vasovasostomy after failed vasovasostomy and elucidate the possible predictors of surgical outcome. Materials and Methods: We evaluated 62 repeat vasectomy reversal cases with followup data available. Regardless of the intraoperative observation of sperm in the vasal fluid bilateral microsurgical 2-layer vasovasostomy was performed when surgically possible. Of these 62 patients 60 (97%) underwent bilateral (58) or unilateral (2) vasovasostomy and 2 (3%) underwent unilateral vasovasostomy with contralateral epididymovasostomy. Results: Patency and pregnancy followup data were available on 62 and 42 patients, respectively. The overall patency and pregnancy rates achieved were 92% and 57%, respectively, and the natural birth rate was 52%. Increased age of the wife proved a negative prognostic factor for pregnancy (p = 0.018). The intraoperative detection of sperm and other factors, including obstructive interval, reconstruction type, anastomotic site, patient age and postoperative semen parameters, did not influence the surgical outcome. Conclusions: Regardless of the detection of sperm in the intravasal fluid during the operation repeat microsurgical vasovasostomy resulted in a better outcome than in other studies, in which adopted epididymovasostomy was done when sperm was absent from the vas fluid. Our study suggests that compromised anastomosis after previous surgery is the most common cause of failed vasovasostomy. We recommend that microsurgical vasovasostomy should be performed preferentially in failed vasovasostomy cases.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1052-1055
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume169
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2003 Mar 1
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Vasovasostomy
Spermatozoa
Pregnancy
Birth Rate
Pregnancy Rate
Semen
Spouses

Keywords

  • Infertility, male
  • Sperm
  • Surgical anastomosis
  • Testes
  • Vasovasostomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Paick, J. S., Park, J. Y., Park, D. W., Park, K., Son, H., & Kim, S. W. (2003). Microsurgical vasovasostomy after failed vasovasostomy. Journal of Urology, 169(3), 1052-1055. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000052666.97595.f6

Microsurgical vasovasostomy after failed vasovasostomy. / Paick, Jae Seung; Park, Jae Young; Park, Dal Woo; Park, Kwanjin; Son, Hwancheol; Kim, Soo Woong.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 169, No. 3, 01.03.2003, p. 1052-1055.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Paick, JS, Park, JY, Park, DW, Park, K, Son, H & Kim, SW 2003, 'Microsurgical vasovasostomy after failed vasovasostomy', Journal of Urology, vol. 169, no. 3, pp. 1052-1055. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000052666.97595.f6
Paick, Jae Seung ; Park, Jae Young ; Park, Dal Woo ; Park, Kwanjin ; Son, Hwancheol ; Kim, Soo Woong. / Microsurgical vasovasostomy after failed vasovasostomy. In: Journal of Urology. 2003 ; Vol. 169, No. 3. pp. 1052-1055.
@article{5ca7e7e35ebb4f51b3c9d3b7f5db9e36,
title = "Microsurgical vasovasostomy after failed vasovasostomy",
abstract = "Purpose: We analyzed our experience with repeat microsurgical vasovasostomy after failed vasovasostomy and elucidate the possible predictors of surgical outcome. Materials and Methods: We evaluated 62 repeat vasectomy reversal cases with followup data available. Regardless of the intraoperative observation of sperm in the vasal fluid bilateral microsurgical 2-layer vasovasostomy was performed when surgically possible. Of these 62 patients 60 (97{\%}) underwent bilateral (58) or unilateral (2) vasovasostomy and 2 (3{\%}) underwent unilateral vasovasostomy with contralateral epididymovasostomy. Results: Patency and pregnancy followup data were available on 62 and 42 patients, respectively. The overall patency and pregnancy rates achieved were 92{\%} and 57{\%}, respectively, and the natural birth rate was 52{\%}. Increased age of the wife proved a negative prognostic factor for pregnancy (p = 0.018). The intraoperative detection of sperm and other factors, including obstructive interval, reconstruction type, anastomotic site, patient age and postoperative semen parameters, did not influence the surgical outcome. Conclusions: Regardless of the detection of sperm in the intravasal fluid during the operation repeat microsurgical vasovasostomy resulted in a better outcome than in other studies, in which adopted epididymovasostomy was done when sperm was absent from the vas fluid. Our study suggests that compromised anastomosis after previous surgery is the most common cause of failed vasovasostomy. We recommend that microsurgical vasovasostomy should be performed preferentially in failed vasovasostomy cases.",
keywords = "Infertility, male, Sperm, Surgical anastomosis, Testes, Vasovasostomy",
author = "Paick, {Jae Seung} and Park, {Jae Young} and Park, {Dal Woo} and Kwanjin Park and Hwancheol Son and Kim, {Soo Woong}",
year = "2003",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/01.ju.0000052666.97595.f6",
language = "English",
volume = "169",
pages = "1052--1055",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Microsurgical vasovasostomy after failed vasovasostomy

AU - Paick, Jae Seung

AU - Park, Jae Young

AU - Park, Dal Woo

AU - Park, Kwanjin

AU - Son, Hwancheol

AU - Kim, Soo Woong

PY - 2003/3/1

Y1 - 2003/3/1

N2 - Purpose: We analyzed our experience with repeat microsurgical vasovasostomy after failed vasovasostomy and elucidate the possible predictors of surgical outcome. Materials and Methods: We evaluated 62 repeat vasectomy reversal cases with followup data available. Regardless of the intraoperative observation of sperm in the vasal fluid bilateral microsurgical 2-layer vasovasostomy was performed when surgically possible. Of these 62 patients 60 (97%) underwent bilateral (58) or unilateral (2) vasovasostomy and 2 (3%) underwent unilateral vasovasostomy with contralateral epididymovasostomy. Results: Patency and pregnancy followup data were available on 62 and 42 patients, respectively. The overall patency and pregnancy rates achieved were 92% and 57%, respectively, and the natural birth rate was 52%. Increased age of the wife proved a negative prognostic factor for pregnancy (p = 0.018). The intraoperative detection of sperm and other factors, including obstructive interval, reconstruction type, anastomotic site, patient age and postoperative semen parameters, did not influence the surgical outcome. Conclusions: Regardless of the detection of sperm in the intravasal fluid during the operation repeat microsurgical vasovasostomy resulted in a better outcome than in other studies, in which adopted epididymovasostomy was done when sperm was absent from the vas fluid. Our study suggests that compromised anastomosis after previous surgery is the most common cause of failed vasovasostomy. We recommend that microsurgical vasovasostomy should be performed preferentially in failed vasovasostomy cases.

AB - Purpose: We analyzed our experience with repeat microsurgical vasovasostomy after failed vasovasostomy and elucidate the possible predictors of surgical outcome. Materials and Methods: We evaluated 62 repeat vasectomy reversal cases with followup data available. Regardless of the intraoperative observation of sperm in the vasal fluid bilateral microsurgical 2-layer vasovasostomy was performed when surgically possible. Of these 62 patients 60 (97%) underwent bilateral (58) or unilateral (2) vasovasostomy and 2 (3%) underwent unilateral vasovasostomy with contralateral epididymovasostomy. Results: Patency and pregnancy followup data were available on 62 and 42 patients, respectively. The overall patency and pregnancy rates achieved were 92% and 57%, respectively, and the natural birth rate was 52%. Increased age of the wife proved a negative prognostic factor for pregnancy (p = 0.018). The intraoperative detection of sperm and other factors, including obstructive interval, reconstruction type, anastomotic site, patient age and postoperative semen parameters, did not influence the surgical outcome. Conclusions: Regardless of the detection of sperm in the intravasal fluid during the operation repeat microsurgical vasovasostomy resulted in a better outcome than in other studies, in which adopted epididymovasostomy was done when sperm was absent from the vas fluid. Our study suggests that compromised anastomosis after previous surgery is the most common cause of failed vasovasostomy. We recommend that microsurgical vasovasostomy should be performed preferentially in failed vasovasostomy cases.

KW - Infertility, male

KW - Sperm

KW - Surgical anastomosis

KW - Testes

KW - Vasovasostomy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037362938&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037362938&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.ju.0000052666.97595.f6

DO - 10.1097/01.ju.0000052666.97595.f6

M3 - Article

VL - 169

SP - 1052

EP - 1055

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 3

ER -