Vasectomy: AUA guideline.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide guidance to clinicians who offer vasectomy services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using the search dates January 1949-August 2011 was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to vasectomy. The search identified almost 2,000 titles and abstracts. Application of inclusion/exclusion criteria yielded an evidence base of 275 articles. Evidence-based practices for vasectomy were defined when evidence was available. When evidence was insufficient or absent, expert opinion-based practices were defined by Panel consensus. The Panel sought to define the minimum and necessary concepts for pre-vasectomy counseling; optimum methods for anesthesia, vas isolation, vas occlusion and post-vasectomy follow up; and rates of complications of vasectomy. This guideline was peer reviewed by 55 independent experts during the guideline development process. RESULTS: Vas isolation should be performed using a minimally-invasive vasectomy technique such as the no-scalpel vasectomy technique. Vas occlusion should be performed by any one of four techniques that are associated with occlusive failure rates consistently below 1%. These are mucosal cautery of both ends of the divided vas without ligation or clips (1) with or (2) without fascial interposition; (3) open testicular end of the divided vas with MC of abdominal end with FI and without ligation or clips; and (4) non-divisional extended electrocautery. Patients may stop using other methods of contraception when one uncentrifuged fresh semen specimen shows azoospermia or ≤ 100,000 non-motile sperm/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Vasectomy should be considered for permanent contraception much more frequently than is the current practice in the U.S. and many other nations. The full text of this guideline is available to the public at http://www.auanet.org/content/media/vasectomy.pdf.

Sperm harvesting and cryopreservation during vasectomy reversal is not cost effective.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether sperm harvesting and cryopreservation at the time of vasectomy reversal is cost-effective. DESIGN: Model of actual costs and results at five institutions. SETTING: Multicenter study comprising five centers, including university hospitals and private practices. PATIENT(S): Men undergoing vasectomy reversal. INTERVENTION(S): We established two models for vasectomy reversal. The first model was sperm harvesting and cryopreservation at the time of vasectomy reversal. The second model was sperm harvesting at the time of IVF only if the patient remained azoospermic after vasectomy reversal. Vasectomy reversal procedures modeled included bilateral vasovasostomy and bilateral epididymovasostomy. The costs for each procedure at the five institutions were collated and median costs determined. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Median cost of procedure and calculated financial comparisons. RESULT(S): The median cost of testicular sperm extraction/cryopreservation performed at the time of bilateral vasovasostomy was $1,765 (range, $1,025-$2,800). The median cost of microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration or testicular sperm extraction with cryopreservation performed at the time of epididymovasostomy was $1,209 (range, $905-$2,488). The average of the median costs for percutaneous sperm aspiration or testicular sperm aspiration for those patients with a failed vasectomy reversal was $725 (range, $400-$1,455). CONCLUSION(S): Sperm retrieval with cryopreservation at the time of vasectomy reversal is not a cost-effective management strategy.