Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T07:14:37.056Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 12 - Vasectomy Reversal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2018

By
Daniel Greene  and
Edmund Sabanegh
Edited by
Jeffrey M. Goldberg ,
Ceana H. Nezhat  and
Jay Ira Sandlow
Jeffrey M. Goldberg
Affiliation:
Cleveland Clinic
Ceana H. Nezhat
Affiliation:
Nezhat Medical Center, Atlanta
Jay Ira Sandlow
Affiliation:
Medical College of Wisconsin
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Reproductive Surgery
The Society for Reproductive Surgeons' Manual
 , pp. 122 - 131
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dassow, P, Bennett, JM. Vasectomy: an update. Am Fam Physician. 2006;74(12):2069–74.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, ML, Lipshultz, LI. Estimating the number of vasectomies performed annually in the United States: data from the National Survey of Family Growth. J Urol. 2010;184(5):2068–72.Google Scholar
Sandlow, JI, Nagler, HM. Vasectomy and vasectomy reversal: important issues preface. Urol Clin N Am. 2009;36(3):xiii–xiv.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potts, JM, Pasqualotto, FF, Nelson, D, Thomas, AJ, Agarwal, A. Patient characteristics associated with vasectomy reversal. J Urol. 1999;161(6):1835–9.Google Scholar
Horovitz, D, Tjong, V, Domes, T, Lo, K, Grober, ED, Jarvi, K. Vasectomy reversal provides long-term pain relief for men with the post-vasectomy pain syndrome. J Urol. 2012;187(2):613–17.Google Scholar
Chan, PT. The evolution and refinement of vasoepididymostomy techniques. Asian J Androl. 2013;15(1):49–55.Google Scholar
Herrel, L, Hsiao, W. Microsurgical vasovasostomy. Asian J Androl. 2013;15(1):44–8.Google Scholar
O’Conor, VJ. Anastomosis of the vas deferens after purposeful division for sterility. J Urol. 1948;59(2):229–33.Google Scholar
Silber, SJ. Microscopic vasoepididymostomy: specific microanastomosis to the epididymal tubule. Fertil Steril. 1978;30(5):565–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, ER. Microsurgical vasovasostomy: a reliable vasectomy reversal. Aust N Z J Surg. 1977;47(3):305–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belker, AM, Thomas, AJ, Jr., 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.Google Scholar
Magheli, A, Rais-Bahrami, S, Kempkensteffen, C, Weiske, WH, Miller, K, Hinz, S. Impact of obstructive interval and sperm granuloma on patency and pregnancy after vasectomy reversal. Int J Androl. 2010;33(5):730–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolettis, PN, Sabanegh, ES, D’Amico, AM, Box, L, Sebesta, M, Burns, JR. Outcomes for vasectomy reversal performed after obstructive intervals of at least 10 years. Urology. 2002;60(5):885–8.Google Scholar
Gerrard, ER, Jr., Sandlow, JI, Oster, RA, Burns, JR, Box, LC, Kolettis, PN. Effect of female partner age on pregnancy rates after vasectomy reversal. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(6):1340–4.Google Scholar
Kolettis, PN, Sabanegh, ES, Nalesnik, JG, D’Amico, AM, Box, LC, Burns, JR. Pregnancy outcomes after vasectomy reversal for female partners 35 years old or older. J Urol. 2003;169(6):2250–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paick, JS, Park, JY, Park, DW, Park, K, Son, H, Kim, SW. Microsurgical vasovasostomy after failed vasovasostomy. J Urol. 2003;169(3):1052–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hernandez, J, Sabanegh, ES. Repeat vasectomy reversal after initial failure: overall results and predictors for success. J Urology. 1999;161(4):1153–6.Google Scholar
Pasqualotto, FF, Agarwal, A, Srivastava, M, Nelson, DR, Thomas, AJ, Jr. Fertility outcome after repeat vasoepididymostomy. J Urol. 1999;162(5):1626–8.Google Scholar
Horovitz, D, Tjong, V, Domes, T, Lo, K, Grober, ED, Jarvi, K. Vasectomy reversal provides long-term pain relief for men with the post-vasectomy pain syndrome. J Urol. 2012;187(2):613–17.Google Scholar
Nangia, AK, Myles, JL, Thomas, AJ. Vasectomy reversal for the post-vasectomy pain syndrome: a clinical and histological evaluation. J Urol. 2000;164(6):1939–42.Google Scholar
Boorjian, S, Lipkin, M, Goldstein, M. The impact of obstructive interval and sperm granuloma on outcome of vasectomy reversal. J Urol. 2004;171(1):304–6.Google Scholar
Kolettis, PN. Is physical examination useful in predicting epididymal obstruction? Urology. 2001;57(6):1138–40.Google Scholar
Silber, SJ. Epididymal extravasation following vasectomy as a cause for failure of vasectomy reversal. Fertil Steril. 1979;31(3):309–15.Google Scholar
Bolduc, S, Fischer, MA, Deceuninck, G, Thabet, M. Factors predicting overall success: a review of 747 microsurgical vasovasostornies. Cuaj-Can Urol Assoc. 2007;1(4):388–94.Google Scholar
Lee, L, McLoughlin, MG. Vasovasostomy: a comparison of macroscopic and microscopic techniques at one institution. Fertil Steril. 1980;33(1):54–5.Google Scholar
Dewire, DM, Lawson, RK. Experience with macroscopic vasectomy reversal at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Wis Med J. 1994;93(3):107–9.Google Scholar
Jee, SH, Hong, YK. One-layer vasovasostomy: microsurgical versus loupe-assisted. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2308–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patel, SR, Sigman, M. Comparison of outcomes of vasovasostomy performed in the convoluted and straight vas deferens. J Urol. 2008;179(1):256–9.Google Scholar
Sheynkin, YR, Chen, ME, Goldstein, M. Intravasal azoospermia: a surgical dilemma. BJU Int. 2000;85(9):1089–92.Google Scholar
Goldstein, M, Li, PSH, Matthews, GJ. Microsurgical vasovasostomy: the microdot technique of precision suture placement. J Urol. 1998;159(1):188–90.Google Scholar
Fischer, MA, Grantmyre, JE. Comparison of modified one- and two-layer microsurgical vasovasostomy. BJU Int. 2000;85(9):1085–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharlip, ID. Vasovasostomy: comparison of two microsurgical techniques. Urology. 1981;17(4):347–52.Google Scholar
Thomas, AJ, Jr. Vasoepididymostomy. Urol Clin North Am. 1987;14(3):527–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berger, RE. Triangulation end-to-side vasoepididymostomy. J Urol. 1998;159(6):1951–3.Google Scholar
Marmar, JL. Modified vasoepididymostomy with simultaneous double needle placement, tubulotomy and tubular invagination. J Urol. 2000;163(2):483–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, PT, Goldstein, M. Superior outcomes of microsurgical vasectomy reversal in men with the same female partners. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(5):1371–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, PT, Brandell, RA, Goldstein, M. Prospective analysis of outcomes after microsurgical intussusception vasoepididymostomy. BJU Int. 2005;96(4):598–601.Google Scholar
Sharlip, ID. What is the best pregnancy rate that may be expected from vasectomy reversal. J Urol. 1993;149(6):1469–71.Google Scholar
Matthews, GJ, Schlegel, PN, Goldstein, M. Patency following microsurgical vasoepididymostomy and vasovasostomy: temporal considerations. J Urol. 1995;154(6):2070–3.Google Scholar
Yang, G, Walsh, TJ, Shefi, S, Turek, PJ. The kinetics of the return of motile sperm to the ejaculate after vasectomy reversal. J Urol. 2007;177(6):2272–6.Google Scholar
Jarow, JP, Sigman, M, Buch, JP, Oates, RD. Delayed appearance of sperm after end-to-side vasoepididymostomy. J Urol. 1995;153(4):1156–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boulet, SL, Mehta, A, Kissin, DM, Warner, L, Kawwass, JF, Jamieson, DJ. Trends in use of and reproductive outcomes associated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. JAMA. 2015;313(3):255–63.Google ScholarPubMed
Delvigne, A. Symposium: update on prediction and management of OHSS. Epidemiology of OHSS. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19(1):8–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, M, Kurinczuk, JJ, Bower, C, Webb, S. The risk of major birth defects after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization. New Engl J Med. 2002;346(10):725–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schieve, LA, Meikle, SF, Ferre, C, Peterson, HB, Jeng, G, Wilcox, LS. Low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology. New Engl J Med. 2002;346(10):731–7.Google Scholar
Heidenreich, A, Altmann, P, Engelmann, UH. Microsurgical vasovasostomy versus microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration/testicular extraction of sperm combined with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. A cost-benefit analysis. Eur Urol. 2000;37(5):609–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolettis, PN, Thomas, AJ, Jr. Vasoepididymostomy for vasectomy reversal: a critical assessment in the era of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. J Urol. 1997;158(2):467–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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; discussion 31.Google Scholar
Glazier, DB, Marmar, JL, Mayer, E, Gibbs, M, Corson, SL. The fate of cryopreserved sperm acquired during vasectomy reversals. J Urol. 1999;161(2):463–6.Google Scholar
Schiff, J, Li, PS, Goldstein, M. Robotic microsurgical vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: a prospective randomized study in a rat model. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1720–5.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Ho, KL, Witte, MN, Bird, ET, Hakim, S. Fibrin glue assisted 3-suture vasovasostomy. J Urol. 2005;174(4 Pt 1):1360–3; discussion 3.Google Scholar
Kolettis, PN. Restructuring reconstructive techniques – advances in reconstructive techniques. Urol Clin North Am. 2008;35(2):229–34, viii–ix.Google Scholar
Vrijhof, EJ, de Bruine, A, Zwinderman, AH, Nijeholt, AABL, Koole, LH. The use of a newly designed nonabsorbable polymeric stent in reconstructing the vas deferens: a feasibility study in New Zealand white rabbits. BJU Int. 2005;95(7):1081–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×