Cadherina E y GATA-3 son útiles para confirmar la presencia de conducto deferente en muestras de vasectomía / E-Cadherine and GATA-3 are useful in the confirmation of the vas deferens in vasectomy specimens

INTRODUCCIÓN Y OBJETIVOS: Con frecuencia los urólogos remiten el tejido resecado durante las vasectomías para estudio anatomopatológico con el fin de confirmar la presencia de conducto deferente. El estudio microscópico es sencillo y se suele hacer con hematoxilina-eosina. En ocasiones, se ve dificultado por artefactos de la muestra y la inmunohistoquímica puede ayudar a reconocer la presencia de deferente. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Hemos investigado la utilidad de la determinación inmunohistoquímica de cadherina E y GATA-3 para confirmar epitelio del deferente en 110 secciones de vasectomías con diferentes artefactos, utilizando anticuerpos monoclonales y técnica de multímero conjugado con peroxidasa; 5 arterias y 5 venas renales fueron controles negativos. RESULTADOS: Con cadherina E se observó tinción de membrana moderada (2,7%) o intensa (97,3%) en el epitelio del deferente en todos los casos: 35 sin artefacto, 7 con epitelio denudado, 56 con epitelio comprimido o distorsionado, 8 con epitelio desprendido y 4 con epitelio desplazado. GATA-3 mostró positividad nuclear moderada (31%) o intensa (69%) en todos los casos, incluyendo los 76 con los artefactos señalados. Las arterias y venas fueron negativas para ambos marcadores en el endotelio, con positividad para GATA-3 en ocasionales linfocitos de la pared. CONCLUSIONES: La inmunohistoquímica puede ayudar a reconocer la presencia de epitelio del deferente en vasectomías artefactadas con positividad de membrana para cadherina E y expresión nuclear de GATA-3. El endotelio vascular, por el contrario, es negativo para ambos marcadores. No se debe malinterpretar como positividad la posible tinción para GATA-3 de linfocitos de la pared

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Urologists often submit the resected tissue from vasectomies for histopathological examination in order to confirm the presence of the vas deferens. Microscopy is simple and based on haematoxylin-eosin staining; however, sample artefacts can sometimes cause confusion and immunohistochemistry can be used to identify the vas deferens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated the utility of immunohistochemical analysis using E-cadherin and GATA-3 to confirm the presence of vas deferens epithelium in 110 vasectomy sections with different artefacts, using monoclonal antibodies and a multimer conjugated with peroxidase based technique; 5 renal arteries and 5 renal veins were stained as negative controls. RESULTS: Membrane staining was observed for E-cadherin, which was moderate (2.7%) or strong (97.3%) in the vas deferens epithelium in all cases: 35 without artefacts, 7 with denuded epithelium, 56 with compressed/distorted epithelium, 8 with detached epithelium and 4 with displaced epithelium. GATA-3 showed moderate (31%) or strong (69%) nuclear staining in all cases, including the 76 with artefacts. In the control group, arteries and veins were negative for both markers in the endothelium, but GATA-3 occasionally stained lymphocytes in the blood vessel wall. CONCLUSIONS: E-cadherin membrane positivity and GATA-3 nuclear expression are useful for the identification of the vas deferens in vasectomy samples containing artefacts. Vascular endothelium is negative for both markers and any possible GATA-3 staining of the lymphocytes in the blood vessel wall should not be misinterpreted

Surgical restoration of vas continuity after vasectomy: further clinical evaluation of a new operation technique.

PIP: 20 unselected former vasectomy patients were subjected to scrotal exploration and vas recanalization operation. Anastomosis was carried out using a large diameter silicone rubber splint; the splint was removed 7 days postoperatively. No complications or side effects were encountered, and there were no patient complaints of discomfort or pain. 92.3% of the men considered satisfactory candidates for recanalization had successful results, and 30.8% of their wives became pregnant. The low fertility rate following successful vas recanalization is not understood. The 2 conditions which were found to be unfavorable for vas recanalization were a vasectomy where a long segment of the vas had been excised or where the vas section had been made very low and involved its convoluted segment.^ieng