Association between the presence of sperm in the vasal fluid during vasectomy reversal and postoperative patency: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Routine Sperm Cryopreservation Before Vasectomy Is not Cost-effective and Does not Increase Live Birth Rates Compared to Surgical Sperm Retrieval or Vasectomy Reversal

OBJECTIVE

To determine if routine pre-vasectomy sperm cryopreservation is more cost-effective than fertility restoration for patients who desire additional children following vasectomy?

METHODS

A scoping review was performed to collect published data regarding efficacy and outcomes of cryopreservation, vasectomy reversal, surgical sperm retrieval, and assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Cost data were collected from US-based facilities performing cryopreservation and andrology clinical care. A cost-effectiveness model was generated using TreeAge Pro cost-effectiveness modeling software with 3 different variations representing a balanced scenario with median expected parameter values, a scenario with assumptions/variables favoring pre-vasectomy cryopreservation, and a scenario favoring fertility restoration. The primary outcome was cost per live birth and the secondary outcome was overall live birth rate.

RESULTS

Pre-vasectomy cryopreservation cost ($140,247, range $48,232-$552,807 per live birth) was significantly higher than with fertility restoration ($20,458 range $20,458-$30,698). Surprisingly, pregnancy success rates appeared to be incrementally higher in the fertility restoration group (62%, range 44%-66%) compared to cryopreservation (46%, range 36%-58%) when using published literature values.

CONCLUSION

Routine sperm cryopreservation prior to vasectomy conveys a significantly higher cost to patients and the healthcare system and does not appear to increase live birth rate compared to fertility restoration with sperm retrieval or vasectomy reversal. Patients without fertility risk factors should be counseled on the added cost and need for ART with pre-vasectomy cryopreservation but should still be allowed to proceed if desired.

Practice patterns of vasal reconstruction in a large United States cohort

We aimed to characterise diverse practice patterns for vasal reconstruction and to determine whether surgeon volume is associated with vasoepididymostomy performance at the time of reconstruction. We identified adult men who underwent vasal reconstruction from 2000 to 2020 in Premier Healthcare Database and determined patient, surgeon, cost and hospital characteristics for each procedure. We identified 3,494 men who underwent either vasovasostomy-alone (N = 2,595, 74.3%) or any-vasoepididymostomy (N = 899, 25.7%). The majority of providers (N = 487, 88.1%) performed only-vasovasostomy, 10 (1.8%) providers performed only-vasoepididymostomy and 56 (10.1%) providers performed both. Median total hospital charge of vasoepididymostomy was significantly higher than vasovasostomy ($39,163, interquartile range [IQR]$11,854-53,614 and $17,201, IQR$10,904-29,986, respectively). On multivariable regression, men who underwent procedures at nonacademic centres (OR 2.71, 95% CI 2.12-3.49) with higher volume surgeons (OR 11.60, 95% CI 8.65-16.00) were more likely to undergo vasoepididymostomy. Furthermore, men who underwent vasoepididymostomy were more likely to self-pay (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.83-3.04, p < .001) and more likely had procedures in the Midwest or West region (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.66-2.96 and OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.61-2.76, respectively; p < .001). High-volume providers have increased odds of performing vasoepididymostomy at the time of reconstruction but at a significantly higher cost. These data suggest possibly centralising reconstructive procedures among high-volume providers.

Vasectomy reversal vs. sperm retrieval with in vitro fertilization: a contemporary, comparative analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore the primary options available to men who desire fertility after a vasectomy.

DESIGN

Literature review.

SETTING

University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

PATIENT(S)

Men with a previous vasectomy now seeking fertility.

INTERVENTION(S)

The two main options to achieve paternity for men following vasectomy include vasectomy reversal (VR) and surgical sperm retrieval with subsequent in vitro fertilization (IVF).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

We reviewed and compared the important considerations for men deciding between these 2 options, including: obstructive interval, female partner age, antisperm antibodies, male partner age, female infertility factors, and cost.

RESULT(S)

Both VR and IVF represent reasonable options for the couple seeking fertility after vasectomy. Specific circumstances may favor one modality over another, depending on obstructive interval, possible female fertility factors, female partner age, male partner age, and cost. In the absence of insurance coverage, VR is often more cost-effective than IVF. Alternatively, when a female factor may contribute to infertility in addition to vasectomy, IVF is often the better choice. Antisperm antibodies are unlikely to contribute to infertility following a successful VR.

CONCLUSION(S)

VR or surgical sperm retrieval with IVF are reasonable options for couples seeking children after vasectomy. Pregnancy rates for both options are overall similar, so prior to pursuing either option, a thorough discussion with a reproductive urologist who possesses microsurgical skills in VR and a reproductive endocrinologist with expertise in IVF is imperative. Making a final choice through shared decision-making while considering these points is ideal.

Challenges in completing a successful vasectomy reversal

Although a wide array of interventions exist for men seeking fertility after vasectomy, up to 6% of them will elect for a vasectomy reversal. While the widespread adoption of telemedicine promises convenience and improved access, lack of ability to do a physical examination may hinder appropriate counselling. Although vasectomy reversal is successfully completed in most of the men either with a vasovasostomy or a vasoepididymostomy, there could be various reasons for the inability to successfully complete the operation. Our commentary outlines the reasons why a vasectomy reversal is not possible or successful. We also discuss a pre-operative management algorithm in men seeking vasectomy reversal to ensure appropriate counselling with a thorough pre-operative history, physical examination and on occasion, hormonal evaluation.

The vasal fluid proteomic profile and microscopic sperm presence at time of vasectomy reversal

Background

The microscopic characteristics of vasal fluid at time of vasectomy reversal (VR) guide operative decision making and predict fertility outcomes. The proteomic profile of this vasal fluid has not been described or correlated with the microscopic fluid appearance. To characterize the vasal fluid proteome at time of VR and evaluate the variation of the vasal fluid proteome with respect to microscopic presence of sperm.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted enrolling twenty-five men undergoing VR for infertility and/or pain at a University-affiliated hospital. Vasal fluid samples obtained at time of VR were grouped based on presence of sperm on light microscopy at time of VR. Proteomic profiles were generated using liquid chromatography/ tandem mass spectrometry, and MS/MS protein spectral counts compared between individuals and treatment groups, controlling for less than 5% protein false discovery rate (FDR). Proteins were matched with the human swissprot database using the Comet search engine, and categorized by Gene Ontology (GO) terms.

Results

There was large variability between the 46 vasal fluid samples collected, with 1,692 unique proteins detected. The three most abundant proteins were Lactotransferrin, Cysteine-rich secretory protein 1, A-kinase anchor protein 4. There was no correlation between the proteome and microscopic sperm presence. Prevalent GO terms included viral process, signal transduction, innate immune response, protein folding and spermatogenesis.

Conclusions

We describe the proteome and the most common proteins in vasal fluid at time of VR. Numerable sperm, testis and epididymis specific proteins were present even in the absence of sperm on microscopy. Further evaluation is needed to determine if a protein biomarker may better guide operative decision making and predict VR fertility outcomes.

Vasoepididymostomy: an insight into current practice patterns

Background

Vasectomy reversal (VR) is a specialized procedure currently offered by an increasing number of medical practitioners. One method of VR, vasoepididymostomy (VE), is considered the most challenging microsurgical technique within the field of reproductive urology. We surveyed reproductive urologists to assess current practice patterns regarding both intra-operative and post-operative considerations surrounding VE, with the hypothesis being that more experienced surgeons may have different practice patterns than less experienced surgeons.

Methods

An anonymous questionnaire was sent to members of the Society for Male Reproduction and Urology (SMRU). The survey included questions regarding case volume, preferred intra-operative techniques, and post-operative management strategies. Responses were collected using Survey Monkey (San Mateo, CA) and statistically analyzed with chi square tests.

Results

Three hundred and twenty SMRU members were contacted to participate in the survey; 74/320 (23.1%) participants completed the survey in its entirety. Respondents performed varying amounts of VR annually with most surgeons (24%) reporting between 11-20 VR per year and 15 surgeons (20.3%) performed over 60 per year. Comparing practitioners who performed ≤30 VR's annually (n=46) to providers who performed >30 (n=28) revealed a significantly lower rate of VE in low-volume practitioners (≤20% vs. >20%, P<0.0001). The most commonly used technique to create the epididymotomy involved placing two 10-0 sutures into the tubule, followed by a sharp incision between the needles (74.3% of respondents). An intussusception anastomosis was the most commonly reported technique; 46.0% of participants utilize longitudinal stitch placement, while 35.1% place sutures horizontally. The most commonly reported time interval to evaluate the first post-reversal semen analysis (SA) was 6-8 weeks (39.2%). Participants were also asked to rank the progression of adjunctive therapies employed in the setting of a subpar post-reversal SA. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the most popular first-line management option (52.7%). Corticosteroids were the most frequently employed second-line option (37.8%). Referral to an in vitro fertilization (IVF) center (9.5%) and repeat surgery (2.7%) were also options pursued by survey respondents. Most providers repeated the SA every 8-12 weeks (41.2%) while following sub-par SA parameters.

Conclusions

VE is a technically demanding procedure that requires both microsurgical expertise and appropriate post-operative care. Our analysis demonstrates that a higher VR operative volume is associated with a higher rate of conversion to VE. This indicates either more experienced surgeons are more likely to perform a VE when indicated or more experience surgeons are getting referred and/or performing more complex VRs.

Vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: Review of the procedures, outcomes, and predictors of patency and pregnancy over the last decade

BACKGROUND

In the era of improving assisted reproductive technology (ART), patients with obstructive azoospermia (OA) have 2 options: vasal repair or testicular sperm extraction with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Vasal repair, including vasovasostomy (VV) and vasoepididymostomy (VE), is the only option that leads to natural conception.

METHODS

This article reviews the surgical techniques, outcomes, and predictors of postoperative patency and pregnancy, with a focus on articles that have reported over the last 10 years, using PubMed database searches.

MAIN FINDINGS

The reported mean patency rate was 87% and the mean pregnancy rate was 49% for a patient following microscopic VV and/or VE for vasectomy reversal. Recently, robot-assisted techniques were introduced and have achieved a high rate of success. The predictors and predictive models of postoperative patency and pregnancy also have been reported. The obstructive interval, presence of a granuloma, and intraoperative sperm findings predict postoperative patency. These factors also predict postoperative fertility. In addition, the female partner's age and the same female partner correlate with pregnancy after surgery.

CONCLUSION

In the era of ART, the physician should present and discuss with both the patient with OA and his partner the most appropriate procedure to conceive by using these predictors.

Vasectomy reversal: decision making and technical innovations

Vasectomy is the method of contraception chosen by more than 500,000 American men annually, and by upwards of 8% of married couples worldwide. However, following the procedure, nearly 20% of men express the desire for children in the future, and approximately 2–6% of American men will ultimately undergo vasectomy reversal (VR). VR is a complex microsurgical procedure. Intraoperative decision-making, surgical technique, and postoperative management are each critical step in achieving high success rates. The aim of this article is to provide a detailed description of the operative and perioperative procedures employed by surgeons performing VRs.

Vasectomy reversal: a clinical update

Vasectomy is a safe and effective method of contraception used by 42–60 million men worldwide. Approximately 3%–6% of men opt for a vasectomy reversal due to the death of a child or divorce and remarriage, change in financial situation, desire for more children within the same marriage, or to alleviate the dreaded postvasectomy pain syndrome. Unlike vasectomy, vasectomy reversal is a much more technically challenging procedure that is performed only by a minority of urologists and places a larger financial strain on the patient since it is usually not covered by insurance. Interest in this procedure has increased since the operating microscope became available in the 1970s, which consequently led to improved patency and pregnancy rates following the procedure. In this clinical update, we discuss patient evaluation, variables that may influence reversal success rates, factors to consider in choosing to perform vasovasostomy versus vasoepididymostomy, and the usefulness of vasectomy reversal to alleviate postvasectomy pain syndrome. We also review the use of robotics for vasectomy reversal and other novel techniques and instrumentation that have emerged in recent years to aid in the success of this surgery.