ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objectives: To estimate the risk of post-vasectomy infections in various settings and across various surgical techniques and sanitization practices. Patients and Methods: Retrospective review of the records of 133,044 vasectomized patients from four large practices/network of practices using the no-scalpel vasectomy (NSV) technique in Canada (2011-2021), Colombia (2015-2020), New Zealand (2018-2021), and the United Kingdom (2006-2019). We defined infection as any mention in medical records of any antibiotics prescribed for a genital or urinary condition following vasectomy. Results: Post-vasectomy infection risks were 0.8% (219 infections/26,809 procedures), 2.1% (390/18,490), 1.0% (100/10,506), and 1.3% (1,007/77,239) in Canada, Colombia, New Zealand, and the UK, respectively. Audit period comparison suggests a limited effect on the risk of infection of excising a short vas segment, applying topical antibiotic on scrotal opening, wearing a surgical mask in Canada, type of skin disinfectant, and use of non-sterile gloves in New Zealand. Risk of infection was lower in Colombia when mucosal cautery and fascial interposition [FI] were used for vas occlusion compared to ligation, excision, and FI (0.9% vs. 2.1%, p<0.00001). Low level of infection certainty in 56% to 60% of patients who received antibiotics indicates that the true risk might be overestimated. Lack of information in medical records and patients not consulting their vasectomy providers might have led to underestimation of the risk. Conclusion: Risk of infection after vasectomy is low, about 1%, among international high-volume vasectomy practices performing NSV and various occlusion techniques. Apart from vasectomy occlusion technique, no other factor modified the risk of post-vasectomy infection.
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Purpose: To determine the prevalence of unilateral absence of vas deferens (UAVD) in men with both testes seeking vasectomy. Materials and Methods: Computerized charts of 23,013 patients encountered between January 1994 and December 2013 in one university hospital and two community clinics of Quebec City, Canada, were searched. Pre-vasectomy consultation, operative reports and semen analysis results were reviewed to identify cases of UAVD. Cases were categorized as confirmed (unilateral vasectomy and success confirmed by semen analysis) or possible congenital UAVD further sub-categorized according to whether or not a scrotal anomaly was present. Results: Among 159 men identified as potentially having UAVD, chart review revealed that 47 had only one testicle, 26 had bilateral vasa, and four were misdiagnosed (post-vasectomy semen analysis [PVSA] showing motile sperm after unilateral vasectomy) leaving 82 men deemed cases of UAVD (0.36%, 95% confidence interval 0.28% to 0.43%). These were classified as confirmed (n=48, 0.21%) and possible (n=34, 0.15%; 22 without and 12 with scrotal anomalies) congenital UAVD. The misdiagnosis ratio of UAVD was low when scrotal content was otherwise normal (1:48), but higher if anomalies were present (3:12). Conclusions: Most surgeons who perform vasectomy will encounter cases of UAVD. In most suspected cases, it is safe and effective to proceed with unilateral vasectomy under local anesthesia while stressing the need for PVSA. Further studies or scrotal exploration may be considered in patient with prior scrotal surgery.