Romero Pérez P, Merenciano Cortina FJ, Rafie Mazketli W, Amat Cecilia M, Martínez Hernández MC. [Vasectomy: study of 300 interventions. Review of the national literature and of its complications].
Actas Urol Esp 2004;
28:175-214. [PMID:
15141417 DOI:
10.1016/s0210-4806(04)73061-2]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
The aims of this paper are: 1. To study the demand and reasons why of the vasectomy in area 12 of Valencian Community. 2. To analyse the adverse effects of our series and the predictable risk factors. 3. To review the adverse effects in the national series. 4. To review the adverse effects referred to in international publications.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A retrospective study was made of 300 patients who had submitted themselves to a vasectomy between january 1992 and december 2000. All the clinical dossiers were reviewed according to 10 pre-established variables. age, number of offspring, reasons why, pre-vasectomy anticontraceptives; date of operation, type of anaesthesia used, pathologic anatomy, semen analysis after vasectomy, adverse effects and their possible causes (risk factors). The basic statistic study was done using a data base of Microsoft Access and the interpretations of the different variables using a table of Excel.
RESULTS
The demand for contraceptive attention (vasectomy) is the 8th cause for external urological consulting and the 4th for urological local ambulatory surgery of our area. 300 operations were done during that period. The average age of the patients was 37.5 years old (ranging from 25 to 51). The number of offspring ranged from 1 to 7, with a promedia of 2.41 children/patient. The reasons why were: voluntary family planning (86%), medical illnesses of the female which contraindicated gestation (9%), genetic reasons (4.33%) and social-sanitary problems (0.66%). Contraceptive methods used by 71.63% are known: The widest-used method being IUD (49.74%) and the preservative (25.88%). 30 patients (10%) had adverse effects, 29 patients having light adverse effects. The most frequent were: 12 orchiepididymitis (4%), 5 spermatic granulomas (1.66%), 3 chronic scrotal pain (1%), 2 scrotal haematoma (0.66%) and 2 bleeding (0.66%). There was one serious complications and of all the cases mentioned above only one needed hospitalization (impetigo-sepsis) and another needed surgery due to a spermatic granuloma. There were no pregnancies or post-vasectomy court cases. 81% of the patients had been declared azoospermic within 45 to 60 days after the vasectomy in one or two consecutive semen analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The vasectomy is a safe and simple way for male sterilization. It's the most widely done urologic operation in Spain. The technique isn't extent of adverse effects (0 to 18%) and its seriousness varies from a simple ecchymosis to Fournier's gangrene, endocarditis or sepsis. A doctor would be considered negligent if he/she didn't inform the patient about the remote possibility of a spontaneous recanalisation of the vas deferens leading to renewed fertility (failure of the vasectomy). It is imperative to give post-vasectomy information where the patient must continue using his habitual anticonceptive method until the azoospermia shown in 2 semen analysis confirm the sterility of the patient so that the urologist has no legal problem.
Collapse