We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Effectiveness and complications associated with 2 vasectomy occlusion techniques.
Journal of Urology 2002 December
PURPOSE: We compared the effectiveness and complications associated with 2 common vasectomy occlusion techniques, namely clipping and excision of a small vas segment and thermal cautery with fascial interposition and an open testicular end.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the computerized records of 3,761 men who underwent initial vasectomy at a single university hospital family planning clinic and at 2 private clinics in the Quebec City, Canada area, including concurrent and historical controls. All procedures were performed by 1 surgeon, who used the scalpel-free technique to expose the vas.
RESULTS: The risk of vas occlusion failure in men with at least 1 semen analysis was much greater in the clipping and excision group than in the cautery, interposition and open testicular end group (126 of 1,453 or 8.7% versus 3 of 1,165 or 0.3%, OR 37, 95% CI 12 to 116). Medical consultations for hematoma or infection were more frequent in the cautery group (28 of 1,721 cases or 1.6% versus 10 of 2,040 or 0.5%, OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.6 to 6.9). Consultations for noninfectious pain were similar for the 2 techniques (71 of 1,721 cases or 4.1% versus 72 of 2,040 or 3.5%, OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.6).
CONCLUSIONS: Cautery and interposition with an open testicular end are much more effective than clipping and excision. The effectiveness and morbidity associated with the components of the cautery, interposition and open testicular end technique need further evaluation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the computerized records of 3,761 men who underwent initial vasectomy at a single university hospital family planning clinic and at 2 private clinics in the Quebec City, Canada area, including concurrent and historical controls. All procedures were performed by 1 surgeon, who used the scalpel-free technique to expose the vas.
RESULTS: The risk of vas occlusion failure in men with at least 1 semen analysis was much greater in the clipping and excision group than in the cautery, interposition and open testicular end group (126 of 1,453 or 8.7% versus 3 of 1,165 or 0.3%, OR 37, 95% CI 12 to 116). Medical consultations for hematoma or infection were more frequent in the cautery group (28 of 1,721 cases or 1.6% versus 10 of 2,040 or 0.5%, OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.6 to 6.9). Consultations for noninfectious pain were similar for the 2 techniques (71 of 1,721 cases or 4.1% versus 72 of 2,040 or 3.5%, OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.6).
CONCLUSIONS: Cautery and interposition with an open testicular end are much more effective than clipping and excision. The effectiveness and morbidity associated with the components of the cautery, interposition and open testicular end technique need further evaluation.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app